The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
An additional benifit of that solution is that it would scale across to their vehicals, however balancing the improvements required to compete with IG tanks and cheap hoard models while not needing to adjust every other non IG vehicals.
But you alao risk just making mortal wound spam even more of a thing if armour saves get buffed, but it's not a bad suggestion.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Sure, if we want to ignore the clearly better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bikes, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice. 1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.
Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does. At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.
If you look at a model and it has a gun in its hands it’s weird for that gun to not have rules, so it needs rules. Nobody expects an ornament to have rules.
The crux has never even had rules, it’s a stone ornament, and separately from that a few months into third edition GW realized a flat 2+ didn’t work against star cannons etc so they got 5++ for no real reason.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.
Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.
-
Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+
I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice. 1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.
Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does. At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.
-
Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+
I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?
I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.
Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.
Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.
-
Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+
I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?
I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead
No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.
Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.
-
I would also combine Tactical and Assault Terminators into one entry and stop pretending that only Snowflake Chapters do it.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
I suggested Terminators went to 1+ armour - happy for all Power Armour to go to 2+
Yes, if we want to ignore the better solution of 2w Marines and 3W Termies/Bike, +1 armour save across the board is a good second choice.
1W Power Armour marines with 2+ would work in a meta in which AP modifies your roll.
Termies with 1+ armour and only 2W also works, but you create the issue in which their Invul is irrelevant up to AP-5, which means you have to tweak what their Crux does.
At least Termies currently need the 5++ against Meltas.(...unless in cover where it won't matter), but with +1 Armour, the invul wouldn't matter in any situation short of a Titan killing weapon.
-
Just for clarity - I am saying all Power armour at 2+ (including Inquisitors, Sisters (of both kinds), Ad Mech etc) - Artificer Armour and Terminator armour at 1+
I am happy to keep or drop the 5++ - there are some wepaons (IIRC) that ignore armour - or am I misremembering?
I assumed you meant all Power armour, and agree. If we don't want 2W Marines (which is my favorite solution) than 2+ works instead
No weapons ignore armour. That is what the Mortal Wound mechanic is for.
Termies with 1+ armour makes having a 5++, which I agree can just be dropped outright. It does, however, make Storm shield much less valuable as they would only protect against weapons with AP-3 or better. Considering most Termies forgo a shooting weapon for a Storm Shield, this should mean the SS is a basically free choice.
-
I would also combine Tactical and Assault Terminators into one entry and stop pretending that only Snowflake Chapters do it.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
Because it cheapens everybody else's troops and basic weapons. Stop reading bolter porn.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
It disguists me from a game mechanichal standpoint, not in a fluff way. The game is not capable of representing true bolter porn fluff anyway as that would not make a practical game (1 marine rips aparts tanks and kill normal men or aliens by the dozen). I prefer the game to be fun rather than fluffy, and I just think 2w basic marines would turn small arms pointless. I would be satisfied with points rebalance (5ppm guard, 11ppm marines for example). Otherwise, why roll 40-60dice of lasguns/shootas if they barely kill one marine? I want action!
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
It disguists me from a game mechanichal standpoint, not in a fluff way. The game is not capable of representing true bolter porn fluff anyway as that would not make a practical game (1 marine rips aparts tanks and kill normal men or aliens by the dozen). I prefer the game to be fun rather than fluffy, and I just think 2w basic marines would turn small arms pointless. I would be satisfied with points rebalance (5ppm guard, 11ppm marines for example). Otherwise, why roll 40-60dice of lasguns/shootas if they barely kill one marine? I want action!
Okay so - you agree marines are bad - you just want to balance the game differently.
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
Because it cheapens everybody else's troops and basic weapons. Stop reading bolter porn.
It has already been proven in simulations that Infantry and Firewarriros still beat 2 wounds 14 point marines.
^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.
14 Fire Warriors:
14x2x(1/2)(2/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/9) = 21.77... points worth of 14pt 2W marines killed.
7 Marines:
7x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 14x(2/9) = 21.77... points wort of 7pt Fire Warriors.
Not sure where it was shown that they were equal. Both do the same wound count. One wounds twice as often, the other has twice as many bodies. Same woundcount. Except the Fire Warriors now take Morale at -3, so will lose more.
4 Marines:
4x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 8x(8/27) = 9.48 points of Guardsmen from shooting
That does look like Guardsmen win. Until you realize that Marines are then on average not even taking a Morale roll, nowhere close to even having a chance to lose a guy. Guardsmen, on average, lose guys to Morale from this, bringing their lost points above the Marines.
So one of the two claims is flat-out wrong, and the other is only true if you ignore morale. And again, all this is in the open.
Insectum7 wrote: ^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.
And then they fall back and then the rest of the army shoots them?
Also more dangerous weapons? 4 Bolters and a Plasma Gun at 80 points is more dangerous than 8 of those dudes and drones? You're on something when you're posting I swear...
There isn't a 'rest of the army' unless you've decided to take 70 points against 2000 points for some reason. Otherwise, you're charging what remains of their 70 points. Sure, they could do 2 5-mans of Fire Warriors. But you shot the 5-man you didn't charge, right? And even if not, if you think a 5-man FW squad is "shooting Marines off the table", something is very, very wrong.
Bharring wrote: 14 Fire Warriors:
14x2x(1/2)(2/3)(1/3) = 28x(1/9) = 21.77... points worth of 14pt 2W marines killed.
7 Marines:
7x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 14x(2/9) = 21.77... points wort of 7pt Fire Warriors.
Not sure where it was shown that they were equal. Both do the same wound count. One wounds twice as often, the other has twice as many bodies. Same woundcount. Except the Fire Warriors now take Morale at -3, so will lose more.
4 Marines:
4x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 8x(8/27) = 9.48 points of Guardsmen from shooting
That does look like Guardsmen win. Until you realize that Marines are then on average not even taking a Morale roll, nowhere close to even having a chance to lose a guy. Guardsmen, on average, lose guys to Morale from this, bringing their lost points above the Marines.
So one of the two claims is flat-out wrong, and the other is only true if you ignore morale. And again, all this is in the open.
Why are we even considering morale when these units are averaging around 2 kills?
The point is, 2W Marines that are roughly double the cost of other basic Troop choices are even and fair because those other options have more actual models, thus more guns. And guns that are typically better than bolters too.
5 Marines with 2W at ~15ppm, 3 Bolters, 1 Plasma & 1 Combi-Plas = 103pts? That's about the same as 10 Eldar Guardians w/ Shuricannon platform (95pts) Well more than 10 Fire Warriors (70pts), which we've already done the math that proves they can kill 5 2W Marines
I am not saying Marines at 2W shouldn't cost more than now, but 15-16ppm is about the sweet spot, Any more expensive and they end up sucking like they do now. And for only 1W, they need to be equal to other comparable choices. i.e. >10ppm, which while balanced, seems wrong.
Bharring wrote: There isn't a 'rest of the army' unless you've decided to take 70 points against 2000 points for some reason. Otherwise, you're charging what remains of their 70 points. Sure, they could do 2 5-mans of Fire Warriors. But you shot the 5-man you didn't charge, right? And even if not, if you think a 5-man FW squad is "shooting Marines off the table", something is very, very wrong.
\
No man - it's simple math. They do shoot you off the table. We aren't even being realistic with these comparisons.
Tau will have a cadre fireblade - so 3 shots instead of 2. probably reroll 1's
Gaurd will have order to shoot twice. Probably reroll 1's
What will the marine squad have? Reroll 1's to hit and wound captain and lieutenant.
I assure you without even doing the math - this just makes things worse for the marines.
Like how are you even defending this? Without even taking game conditions into account (which are going to favroite the IG or Tau every time) literally doubling the wounds marines currently have does not produce a favorable situation for space marine tacs. Which supposed to be strong against infantry. This is troll level defense.
I always see people describe marines as generalist...not sure where this messed up notion even came from. The lose in every situation vs everything - that is just a unit that sucks. They lose in assault to friggen guardsmen.
Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.
Insectum7 wrote: ^So what? Why is that the metric? Marines can get much more dangerous weapons than Fire Warriors, can therefore meaningfully threaten more targets. Or they can drive up in a Rhino and punch them in the face. Your simulation sucks.
And then they fall back and then the rest of the army shoots them?
Also more dangerous weapons? 4 Bolters and a Plasma Gun at 80 points is more dangerous than 8 of those dudes and drones? You're on something when you're posting I swear...
Lots of targets fall to Plasma and Grav faster than massed S5 no AP. This shouldn't be a hard sell.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.
Nope -
74 point rhino is now being tied up by 3-4 firewarriors that cost 28 points...
Plus - thanks to tau sept and FTGG. Your rhino might not even make it because the 4 melta commander hitting on 5's in overwatch - plus everything else in range - get to shoot you.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino into the Fire Warriors. Boom, can't shoot. They fall back, Rhino does the same thing next turn. And so on and so on. A 72 point Rhino just defeats the Fire Warriors, because they can't hurt the thing enough to stop it, because they only have S5 no AP guns. So Marines don't even have to engage the Fire Warriors because their cheap Transport can just keep them out of the game. 10 Fire Warriors is 20x.5x.333x.333 = 1.1 wound against the Rhino. So those Fire Warriors better be climbing up in those buildings to get away from that unstoppable marauding Rhino.
Nope -
74 point rhino is now being tied up by 3-4 firewarriors that cost 28 points...
Plus - thanks to tau sept and FTGG. Your rhino might not even make it because the 4 melta commander hitting on 5's in overwatch - plus everything else in range - get to shoot you.
Oh, so there ARE other units in the game then? For a second I thought you were just offering "proofs" via. isolated standoffs.
(The Rhino can charge 2 teams, and hence tie up more than it's points worth. Rhino wins again.)
Xenomancers wrote: Lets see. 4 grav 10 marines and a drop pod. That's 327 points. I'll tell you one thing - that is a much better squad than the tactical.
"No man - it's simple math."
Yes. Very simple. Very easy to not screw up.
"They do shoot you off the table."
Per above, they only "shoot you off the table" when they take 4x as many points or so. Otherwise, no, they don't shoot you off the table any more than you shoot them off the table.
"We aren't even being realistic with these comparisons."
Well, "realistic" is code for "not how I envision it". A claim that 2W 14ppm Marines lose to these units toe-to-toe just trading fire is about the units directly trading fire. Saying "But if they took a Basalisk or Riptide..." or anything else isn't just the two units going toe to toe.
"Tau will have a cadre fireblade - so 3 shots instead of 2. probably reroll 1's "
Because that Fireblade is free. Maybe if we gave Marines a way to reroll 1s to hit, that might help balance things out? If only they could get that or reroll wounds. That might make things fair.
Alternately, those 14 Fire Warriors don't last long in CC against 7 Tac Marines with a Captain in toe! Equally pointless.
"Gaurd will have order to shoot twice. Probably reroll 1's"
Again, free points for Guard to prove that equal points of Guard vs equal points of Marines mean Guard win? That's like arguing the earth is flat because when you drop something it falls. Zuh?
"Like how are you even defending this?"
Seriously? How am I defending arguing that the math does *not* show that Fire Warriors always win a shootout with Marines at 2W 14pt? After running the math and seeing that, no that is not the case?
I get that you can't believe I'm defending Marines as being fine as is. That should be unbelieveable. Because I'm explicitly *NOT DOING THAT*.
"Without even taking game conditions into account[...]"
When looking at a claim made about situations in a void, looking at the situation outside game conditions - of course the counterclaim doesn't take game conditions into account.
"Without even taking game conditions into account (which are going to favroite the IG or Tau every time) literally doubling the wounds marines currently have does not produce a favorable situation for space marine tacs"
-CC - Marines win
-Cover - Marines win
-Objective/ground holding - Marines win
Each one of these 3 are clearly "a favorable situation for space marine tacs". So it produces at least 3. With the toe-to-toe shootout being either a tie (if you ignore Morale) or a win (if you include Morale).
"Which supposed to be strong against infantry."
Umm... Isn't that Fire Warriors? Per point/resource expenditure/commitment, aren't Fire Warriors supposed to be outshooting most other infantry?
If you're talking all-around, sure, Marines do better in CC and vs Morale. But in shooting, in any comparision other than per model, what are Fire Warriors supposed to be good at if not outshooting Troops?
Aren't Guardsmen supposed to be strong at soaking fire, as well?
It's like you think Marines should be better per point at everything.
"This is troll level defense."
No. This is pointing out a very easily disputed claim. I'm not trolling. If you weren't so consistent, with these wild claims, I'd be suspicious that you were trolling me. You keep making the same claims and then recaracterize any counterpoint as arguing something totally different, usually as arguing something the poster has explicitly agreed with.
"They lose in assault to friggen guardsmen.". Well, maybe, don't assault 8 Marines into 3 units of 26 guardsmen. Charge 2 units, kick the snot out of them, then deal with the remaining unit. Or just make it hard for all 26 or 50 or whatever Guardsmen to all get into CC with your smaller numbers. Or take just about any CC option, if you want to leverage CC. Or shoot them first to thin them out. Marines are supposed to be super soldiers. But Guardsmen are supposed to be supernumerous. I want Marines to work. But I don't want them to auto-win against other troops.
Martel732 wrote: Just quite engaging him. I have. It's pointless.
haha. That directed at me or Xeno?
Probably directed at you to quite engaging Xenos, and maybe to a lesser extend me. Both Xenos and I seem to be very adamant that 2W Marines are the only "correct" answer.
Martel would probably be ok with 2W Marines, but is also pro-Horde Marines, which I am not. You shouldn't be able to take Marines on a 1:1 ratio with other Troops. It just isn't supposed to be their style. They should be worth (in both points AND actual value) at least 3-4 Guardsmen, or about 2 of the GEQ Xenos troops like Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors, etc.
Whether those units need their point adjusted or not, Marine should always be *worth* more.
So Bharring, you think marines aren't as good as they should be.
What would be your suggestion for making them better? What do they need in order to be competitive in your eyes? And by competitive I mean a reasonable option in an event at the ETC.
IMHO marine troops need to be better than other troops. I'd love for 70ish marines marching down the field drowning enemies in massed bolter fire to work. Looking at any competitive event it just doesn't.
I'd like marines to be a slow but mobile force that is hard to deal with due to volume of bolter fire, a relentless advance and specialist troops that can act as scalpels.
I want 2+ for MEQs and 1+ for TEQs (not more wounds, the math works out similar as the +w suggestion)
Firing ports on rhinos
disembark after moving landraiders
+1 attack across the board
6s +1 hit for all bolters used by marines.
bolters assault 3, 24" range,
heavy bolters heavy 4.
primaris bolters rf 2, 30-36" range, -1ap/assault 4, 24" range/heavy 2, 48" range, -2 ap, sniper
chainswords -1 ap storm bolters rf 3, 24" range
I think a lot of units probably need individual attention (centurions, dreads, reivers, Gulliman, termies, land raiders, assault marines)
New chapter tactics that apply to vehicles (can't just port them over unless templars are getting some sort of melee tank...)
New strats/psychic powers on par with some of the newer ones (+1 to wound, double shooting, deepstrike, +1 ap, -1 to hit)
Now all of this needs to be complimented by fixes (nerfs) to eldar, dark eldar, some chaos builds (fearless cultists, arhman, bash bros), negative hit stacking, roll back of the deepstrike nerf (can't deepstrike turn 1 w/in 9" of enemy deployment zone is fine).
They need to be autowin vs other troops to have a chance vs the other slots in Xeno armies. Quit focusing on troops. Marines aren't just the troops for marines. They're basically every slot. Quit ignoring this.
Martel732 wrote: Just quite engaging him. I have. It's pointless.
haha. That directed at me or Xeno?
Probably directed at you to quite engaging Xenos, and maybe to a lesser extend me.
Both Xenos and I seem to be very adamant that 2W Marines are the only "correct" answer.
Martel would probably be ok with 2W Marines, but is also pro-Horde Marines, which I am not.
You shouldn't be able to take Marines on a 1:1 ratio with other Troops. It just isn't supposed to be their style. They should be worth (in both points AND actual value) at least 3-4 Guardsmen, or about 2 of the GEQ Xenos troops like Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors, etc.
Whether those units need their point adjusted or not, Marine should always be *worth* more.
-
Marine "style" doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't since 3rd. They put the disintegrator and the -1 AP necron dynasty in the game. Trying to make marines live is largely folly imo. They're going to die in huge numbers. 20, 25 per turn.
Galef wrote: The point is, 2W Marines that are roughly double the cost of other basic Troop choices are even and fair because those other options have more actual models, thus more guns. And guns that are typically better than bolters too.
5 Marines with 2W at ~15ppm, 3 Bolters, 1 Plasma & 1 Combi-Plas = 103pts?
That's about the same as 10 Eldar Guardians w/ Shuricannon platform (95pts)
Well more than 10 Fire Warriors (70pts), which we've already done the math that proves they can kill 5 2W Marines
I am not saying Marines at 2W shouldn't cost more than now, but 15-16ppm is about the sweet spot, Any more expensive and they end up sucking like they do now.
And for only 1W, they need to be equal to other comparable choices. i.e. >10ppm, which while balanced, seems wrong.
-
So, what are "comparable choices"? Are Guard a "comparable choice?". Dire Avengers at 12ppm? Genestealers at 10? Oddly, one of the units I liken most to a Tactical Squad because of their loadout options is Tyranid Warriors. Are they "comparable?" Do "comparable" units have to "break even" vs. those choices in isolation or can they operate in a different way to be effective?
I get that we have this sort of innate need for Marines to trounce Guardsmen. I would just ask "under what framework and context?". 10 Marines can trounce 10 Guardsmen. 10 Marines don't trounce 30 of them at once. Is that necessarily bad? I don't think so. I keep going back to the example that it takes 20 Guardsmen shots to kill a single marine at 1W. Doubling Marine wounds to 2 makes that 40 shots. I think that's really, really bad for the "table feel" of anyone not marines. 80 Lasgun shots to kill a single marine in cover.
Martel732 wrote: They need to be autowin vs other troops to have a chance vs the other slots in Xeno armies. Quit focusing on troops. Marines aren't just the troops for marines. They're basically every slot. Quit ignoring this.
Martel732 wrote: Just quite engaging him. I have. It's pointless.
haha. That directed at me or Xeno?
Probably directed at you to quite engaging Xenos, and maybe to a lesser extend me.
Both Xenos and I seem to be very adamant that 2W Marines are the only "correct" answer.
Martel would probably be ok with 2W Marines, but is also pro-Horde Marines, which I am not.
You shouldn't be able to take Marines on a 1:1 ratio with other Troops. It just isn't supposed to be their style. They should be worth (in both points AND actual value) at least 3-4 Guardsmen, or about 2 of the GEQ Xenos troops like Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors, etc.
Whether those units need their point adjusted or not, Marine should always be *worth* more.
-
Marine "style" doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't since 3rd. They put the disintegrator and the -1 AP necron dynasty in the game. Trying to make marines live is largely folly imo. They're going to die in huge numbers. 20, 25 per turn.
Yeah because everyone's not forced to take multiple troop units regardless of how good or bad they are for CP's especially when you can't soup.
Also your seriously still trying to sell that marines should outshoot Tau who's who thing is being the shooting army and always has been?
Marines can't be the best at everything, they need to be balanced not just autowin. If you want a game thats exclusively marine vrs marines 30k exsist.
Marines being outshot by guardsmen is wrong but guardsmen at 4ppm are undercosted 5ppm is what guardsmen are worth, their orders might still need some work or officers need to pay points for the power of the orders.
It's not just DE that can do this to marines. My very tame Ulthwe eldar list is not top teir competitive.
I take D cannons/ war walkers with star cannons / 2 wave serpants with 15 DA / 20 man gardian/ and 2 fire prisms. Autarch on jetbike and eldrad. I think that list has a crimson hunter too.
Like - everything in that army removes space marines at a high rate. It's game over at turn 1. THIS IS A TAC LIST.
Getting into my ideal fixes seems to be even more toxic than just counter-arguing some of the more crazy claims.
In a broad sense, I'm not sure that Marines are what needs fixing. The problem seems to be scads of other things. Bringing Marines to 2W doesn't fix Dissies or Plasma Scions or 4pt model Guardians. That last one doesn't bother Tac Marines anymore, but is still crazy.
Conceptually, the following needs to happen:
-Many of the 'medium' arms (Dissies, Plas, etc) need to be nerfed.
-Many of the cheaper GEQ need to go up in points (Guardsmen, Kabs, and FW could all use +1ppm, for example).
-Specials/heavies need to matter when you have only 1 of them - look at the Flamer and Melta as is, for example
-Stratagems need rebalancing (Auspex, for example, needs to be 1CP or not include a -1-to-hit).
-Traits need rework. Maybe even make UM traits part of ATSKNF, and give UM something else.
-Droppods need to go down in points. A lot.
-Droppods carrying Tacs should be able to bypass the 'deepstrike in your deployment zone T1' rule for 1CP for one, or 3CP for 2.
And that's just for a start. A lot more needs to be done. Probably more than would be done short of a new edition. Which is too bad. Much more than is in the average CA, and most of the codexes are already out.
For Tac Marines, a stopgap could be 11ppm +1A with no other rules change. Doesn't make them "right", but makes them viable.
For Termies, they need a lot more. Unfortunately, competitive play doesn't need a middleweight "rook" unit. Termies wouldn't hold up as-is even if that were in demand, but the thing they need most is a Plas fix (why did IoMPlas get buffed so much in 8th?). Coupled with a number of other multiwound Plas-equivelents (Starswarm shouldn't be D:2. Dissies need a change.).
I tried arguing the specific level the buff/change should be at earlier in this thread, and it did not go well. So I'm just sniping crazy claims instead of suggesting and supporting the exact changes I'd like to see.
Martel732 wrote: Marine "style" doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't since 3rd. They put the disintegrator and the -1 AP necron dynasty in the game. Trying to make marines live is largely folly imo. They're going to die in huge numbers. 20, 25 per turn.
And that is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. Making them "expendable" is technically a solution, but if we do this, why bother with Marines at all? Why not just make every army a horde so that no army is a horde? Marines are special because they are super human, even better than most Xenos who are by their nature or tech also better than a regular human.
I want Marines to have their own style that sets them apart and makes them play as a (relatively) small number of elite warriors. 50 or so Marines with half a dozen tanks **should** be equal to 100 GEQs with about a dozen tanks. Just because a few armies currently delete Marines by the handfuls, doesn't change this. Making them cheaper also will not change this, it just means you will have some spare Marines to die next turn.
The same goes for Termies, who I would argue benefit even more from +1W than regular Marines since there are currently D2 weapons that would no fail to outright kill the Termies. What needs to be cheaper isn't the Marine itself, it's the weapons they carry that need to drop in points.
There is no design space for the marine "style". They tried that with primaris and made them WORSE.
We'd have to move to D10, or at minimum, stretch all the current stats.
"even better than most Xenos"
They are straight up gak compared to Xenos, and I don't see a good way to fix that atm, other than just admitting they are gak and charging accordingly. You see how people are losing their goddamn minds over the +1 W thing, even though many of them probably roll marines every time they play them.
"why did IoMPlas get buffed so much in 8th?"
It's one of the few effective things marines can deploy, unfortunately. IG does it better, of course.
As for these specific claims, I'd like to share my thoughts with you.
-I want 2+ for MEQs and 1+ for TEQs (not more wounds, the math works out similar as the +w suggestion)
Not a huge fan of 2+ Marines. Too much durability. Kabs and Guardsmen are OP, but now you've hosed a number of other troops out there
-Firing ports on rhinos
Totally agree. Would love to see this added. Would be fine on it's own.
-disembark after moving landraiders
Wouldn't that make more sense for Venoms and Raiders and maybe even Falcons? It makes SM assault more gimmicky, which means anything that can take it can't be brought up to reasonable balance levels when they don't take it. I'd rather a points reduction.
-+1 attack across the board
On board. Maybe a second look at HQs, but should be fine. Rank 'n file being A:2 is a good idea.
-6s +1 hit for all bolters used by marines.
This works out to a 25% increase in firepower. I don't like the mechanic, but just a flat change wouldn't be OP.
-bolters assault 3, 24" range,
So Shuriken Catapaults with twice the range, half again the shots, and no Bladestorm? You basically eclipse a number of Troop weapons that are supposed to be as scary as a Boltgun.
-heavy bolters heavy 4.
I was thinking RF2 or 3 - but this works
-chainswords -1 ap Fun fact: Storm Guardians can take Chainswords. Already a huge upgrade from their stock weapons, for free. Back on topic, it'd work, but I like my ASM as AP0. If we can't actually balance the game, this would help as a stopgap. I don't like it, though. That being said, crunchwise, shouldn't be a problem (should cost a few points, but the ASM should be discounted the same to compensate).
-storm bolters rf 3, 24" range
Again, half again the firepower. Not crazy. Most armies don't fear the Storm Bolter currently, but a few builds actually do.
It's hard to properly consider these chagnes because the game is so schizophrenic right now. On one hand you have 4ppm Guardsmen which means SM need a huge buff. On the other hand, you have 8ppm Guardians who really just have a shotgun that's a sidegrade from a Boltgun. Then you have Dire Avengers who pay 12ppm for half the durability to small arms.
It's hard to balance Tacs because what do you balance them against? Balance against IG, and they're now OP and the rest of the factions are trash. Balance them vs Tau, and they still can't stand up to IG.
Martel732 wrote: Just quite engaging him. I have. It's pointless.
haha. That directed at me or Xeno?
Probably directed at you to quite engaging Xenos, and maybe to a lesser extend me.
Both Xenos and I seem to be very adamant that 2W Marines are the only "correct" answer.
Martel would probably be ok with 2W Marines, but is also pro-Horde Marines, which I am not.
You shouldn't be able to take Marines on a 1:1 ratio with other Troops. It just isn't supposed to be their style. They should be worth (in both points AND actual value) at least 3-4 Guardsmen, or about 2 of the GEQ Xenos troops like Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors, etc.
Whether those units need their point adjusted or not, Marine should always be *worth* more.
-
But how do we calculate worth? Via a straight up standoff? I think I've shown (elsewhere, though I could copy it again) that the "Standoff vs." model is a really bad method to go by.
So here's something to consider when thinking about "troops" style engagements. The marine "troop to transport" point ratio is really interesting. Marines have some of the cheapest transports around, but they carry some of the more expensive "basic troops" around. This is the inverse of most armies off the top of my head. Guard in a Chimera, Guardians (or even Avengers) in Wave Serpents. It's cheaper for marines to truck around a greater value of models. Imo that's inseparable from the MO of marines, and it's worth something. It's just one order higher on the "vs. simulation model", but it has a significant impact when thinking about Guard vs. Marine type of scenarios, because it means it's much easier for marines to concentrate force.
I think bringing down the rest of the game to the marine level is actually the best solution and I pretty much agree with everything you posted. I also agree that so much work needs to be done it won't happen until a new edition comes out.
Problem with nerfing plasma is that seems to be the best weapon marines have going for us so it helps survive but really hurts where I think marines suck at (killing stuff).
I'm just anti the horde marine (10-11 points) as that niche is filled so much better by other armies but it does make sense as much as I wouldn't want to see it.
Also, nerfing units doesn't sell new units. Looking at the codex creep that has happened already I can't see them walking it back enough.
As cynical as that sounds I don't see it happening and as some other poster somewhere posted marines probably aren't on the "buff to sell more models list" because they sell well enough already.
I think you're closer to the same page as a lot of posters are. Now to just find a way to reel in Insect...
Agreed. But they aren't SUPPOSED to be. I am trying to do 2 things at once here: Give Marines something that makes them better AND makes them play more like they are portrayed. Few in number but more powerful 1v1 than other factions' rank-n-file infantry.
Bharring wrote: Banshees:
14ppm 2W Marines beat Banshees in Assault. And in shooting, by a lot.
Scorpions:
Same
Hawks:
Same
Spiders:
Same
Vypers:
Same
War Walkers:
Same
Are those troops?
I don't believe you on some of those units for starters. Also, try looking at some meta threats, not Eldar 3rd tier units. 2W marines are still auto-scoops vs Drukhari.
Agreed. But they aren't SUPPOSED to be. I am trying to do 2 things at once here: Give Marines something that makes them better AND makes them play more like they are portrayed. Few in number but more powerful 1v1 that other factions rank-n-file.
-
You get to Custodes real fast. Because we are dealing with tiny numbers.
Plas tacs (PG/Combi) seems to be one of the few actually threatening Tac builds. So if you bring Plas down, you need to bring Tacs up in other ways.
However, Plas is one of the best ways to kill Tacs, Primaris, and Termies. So bringing Plas down brings each of those up.
Also, I think Insect is more on the same page as it appears. He's doing the same thing of trying to refute the crazier extreme claims. He doesn't actually believe Tacs > Reapers. It was a reduction to the absurd to show that certain claims were rediculous.
In that vein, I think Tacs would benefit immensely from a 55pt Rhino.
Not really. The rhino is fine-ish. It's just carrying pure gak. Making it 55 pts lets me buy one more gakky marine. Yippee.
Let's just take the gloves off here. Marines need balanced against:
Dissy spam
Riptide/shield drone
Mortal wound spam (Tsons)
-1 AP dynasty
Alaitoc Eldar dark reaper/farseer spam
The entire IG codex, almost
These are the things doing the lifting in a competitive meta. Not your banshees. Not your war walkers. Basal marines are the troops, fast attack, heavy support and elites for marines. Stop dancing around this.
Martel732 wrote: Not really. The rhino is fine-ish. It's just carrying pure gak. Making it 55 pts lets me buy one more gakky marine. Yippee.
Let's just take the gloves off here. Marines need balanced against:
Dissy spam
Riptide/shield drone
Mortal wound spam (Tsons)
-1 AP dynasty
Alaitoc Eldar dark reaper/farseer spam
The entire IG codex, almost
These are the things doing the lifting in a competitive meta. Not your banshees. Not your war walkers. Basal marines are the troops, fast attack, heavy support and elites for marines. Stop dancing around this.
Marines have access to 90+ units in their book, and then a bunch more from FW. As long as some combination of units across that entire spectrum can do ok, we're good. This doesn't necessarily affect the relationship between tac marines and other "basic units".
Plus, and perhaps more importantly, tournament lists are not the 90% use case of the product of 40K. Tournaments are essentially a sideshow.
Curiosity question for Martel: If you absolutely had to pick between: +1W for MEQs, TEQ and Bikes OR +1 armour saves across the board for Marines and CSMs
Assuming no points changes at all, which would you pick?
+1 W, probably. The armor save thing is easily negated by dissy cannons and MW factories. The dissy cannon really redefines marines in a very negative way. It's quite literally a win button vs marines. It's really good vs all armies, but for marines, it's just game over.
With +1 W, terminators and primaris don't instantly lose to dissy cannons.
Martel732 wrote: +1 W, probably. The armor save thing is easily negated by dissy cannons and MW factories. The dissy cannon really redefines marines in a very negative way.
Indeed. Which is why I am so adamant about it. Having an extra would is a "guarantee" in more situations than a better armour save.
I also think Marine weapon options are too few in availability, which is where I would focus on making them more offensive. Make their guns cheaper and more plentiful and suddenly they are killing those units that delete them much faster, thus not being able to delete them.
Agreed. But they aren't SUPPOSED to be. I am trying to do 2 things at once here: Give Marines something that makes them better AND makes them play more like they are portrayed. Few in number but more powerful 1v1 than other factions' rank-n-file infantry. -
Buuut. . . "how they are portrayed" varies quite a bit. . . and how xenos are portrayed is often as powerful as how marines are portrayed. This is the "Aspect Warrior vs. Marine Problem." They're both bad---es. But the addition of 1w on marines jumps them way up in comparison.
Plus, Marines are currently significanty more powerful 1v1 than Guardsmen and Fire Warriors. Other infantry gets interesting. Should Marines be more powerful 1v1 than Immortals? I hope not.
Yes, I am. Because marines have to deal with the giant suits and the stealth gak, too. They should totally have their way with firewarriors.
This is right. In epic scale, the marine army is identical to a 40k army. In 40k the marines’ hard counter to a trio of wraithknights is four marines with multi-meltas, or a flying golf cart with a multi-melta. In their original depictions they are underdogs and usually a second away from being crushed.
There’s nothing in the rules about being a better soldier than the enemy. There’s a bs for hitting a target, but nothing about hitting a target and then immediately retraining on another target, there’s nothing about being ready when the enemy breaks cover to shoot, and then shooting them before they get their own shot off.
Marines have high leadership but there’s no way to use this offensively, even though a disciplined unit has better fire at more coordinated targets instead of a undisciplined unit that fires at will.
The more and more I read these threads the more I think the issue isn't marines it's paying twice for being BS3+.
BS3+ is built into the cost of the platforms of all marine units they then over pay for weapons, take 2 or 3 points of of all marine weapons and that improves marines damage output while not making all of xeno troops the next tac marines.
Ice_can wrote: The more and more I read these threads the more I think the issue isn't marines it's paying twice for being BS3+.
BS3+ is built into the cost of the platforms of all marine units they then over pay for weapons, take 2 or 3 points of of all marine weapons and that improves marines damage output while not making all of xeno troops the next tac marines.
Anything helps. If this is how you view the mathematical problem, I can't deny it. I don't think this helps the dissy cannon situation, but anything helps.
Having only one base attack sucks balls, though, because assault marines inherit that trait.
For clarity, I wasn't suggesting 55pt Rhinos instantly makes Marines compete with Guardsmen. I was saying 55pt Rhinos would do more to buff Tacs than might be immediately evident. It'd need to be coupled with other things to bring them back to the top of the meta.
I don't believe I was clear on my intention this time, sorry.
Bharring wrote: For clarity, I wasn't suggesting 55pt Rhinos instantly makes Marines compete with Guardsmen. I was saying 55pt Rhinos would do more to buff Tacs than might be immediately evident. It'd need to be coupled with other things to bring them back to the top of the meta.
I don't believe I was clear on my intention this time, sorry.
Again, the Rhino is not the problem. It's what's in the Rhino.
Ice_can wrote: The more and more I read these threads the more I think the issue isn't marines it's paying twice for being BS3+.
BS3+ is built into the cost of the platforms of all marine units they then over pay for weapons, take 2 or 3 points of of all marine weapons and that improves marines damage output while not making all of xeno troops the next tac marines.
Anything helps. If this is how you view the mathematical problem, I can't deny it. I don't think this helps the dissy cannon situation, but anything helps.
Having only one base attack sucks balls, though, because assault marines inherit that trait.
I'm not saying that dissy cannons arn't silly Aldari OPBS shenanigans, but you can't balance things against the most OPBS, buff the poor nerf the OPBS and you get a better balance not just the rolling power creep that has defined 40k for years.
I can get behind the 2A it's just the 2W thing is all sorts of balance braking.
You MUST balance vs the OP shenanigans, because that's what people USE IN PRACTICE. They don't use the crappy models. Also, do you want to go through and find all the things too good at killing marines? I don't. Fix the marines.
If no extra wounds, then it must be power armor horde. Because marines die like grots in the current meta.
Martel732 wrote: You MUST balance vs the OP shenanigans, because that's what people USE IN PRACTICE. They don't use the crappy models.
I must disagree 100%
No you nerf the OP shenanigans.
If you buff around the most OP outliers no-one but marines and dissi spam can compete, so crons need buffed, guard need buffed, Tau need buffed and orks would get a codex that needs buffs basically on arrival. That is a terrible solution.
Minimal adjustments of the top 10% and bottom 10%-20% brings everyone closer. The closer everyone gets more list varieties are viable the less hard spam of dissi cannons etc is normal. So when something is spammed its obviously rip for immediate NERF hammer.
But you don't have to balance your base unit vs. OP Shennanigans. You just need some solution in the entirety of the codex. (or cdex + FW)
Like I posted in the other thread, Two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons and Cherub alpha at 40 S5 -3AP D3damage (usually). That's about equivalent to the 40 disintegrator shots.
If there are 10 things. 1 beats the other 9 readily.
Do you buff whatever is #7 up to #1's level?
If you do so, you go from roughly 20% of games being auto-win to roughly 35/40% of games being auto-win.
In other words, "fixing" #7 that way ruins many more games for 5 other factions. So, now #7 can stand up to the 10% of factions that beat it readily. But now 80% of it's games, someone else is now in the auto-lose category.
Bharring wrote: If there are 10 things. 1 beats the other 9 readily.
Do you buff whatever is #7 up to #1's level?
If you do so, you go from roughly 20% of games being auto-win to roughly 35/40% of games being auto-win.
In other words, "fixing" #7 that way ruins many more games for 5 other factions. So, now #7 can stand up to the 10% of factions that beat it readily. But now 80% of it's games, someone else is now in the auto-lose category.
As I just stated, I think the "nerf the game to tac level" involves far too many changes to be viable.
So we should nerf anything that can't stand up to newly-buffed Tacs? Which, if you go for the strongest unit it the game is... every other unit in the game?
Indirectly nerf every single unit in the game other than Tacs and whatever 1 other unit is top dog, just to make one unit be "good" again?
You get the most mileage out of the fewest buffs/nerfs by hitting the outliers. If you hit the 3 strongest and the 3 weakest, the range of capability will be much tighter than if you take 6 units that are currently mid or low tier and buff them to be top tier.
This is why I say make them 10-11 ppm and be done with it. That's what they are worth. Power armor horde for the win. I don't care about the fluff or the background, really.
If they are gonna die like grots, they should be priced closer to grots. Admit they are a conceptual failure and price them accordingly.
11ppm 2A Tacs feels like a stopgap to wait out bad rules until some major revamp. It doesn't feel like we've done anything to make Tacs feel great. But at that point level, they'd be really effective.
Bharring wrote: 11ppm 2A Tacs feels like a stopgap to wait out bad rules until some major revamp. It doesn't feel like we've done anything to make Tacs feel great. But at that point level, they'd be really effective.
Sure, I'd take what I could get. 10 ppm single attack might be even better. Since they gonna die before they can swing anyway. Because 8th ed.
Martel732 wrote: This is why I say make them 10-11 ppm and be done with it. That's what they are worth. Power armor horde for the win. I don't care about the fluff or the background, really.
If they are gonna die like grots, they should be priced closer to grots. Admit they are a conceptual failure and price them accordingly.
So sisters are what 7ppm thats going to be supper fun games for tau & crons.
Your blindly trying to sell that tac marines need to be competitive against the top 5% of all units so everyone else not spamming that latest undercosted GW codex mistake gets rofl stomped by every marine player in any other game. thats not balance. Thats dowsing balance in gasoline and throwing matches at it.
Sisters stay at 9. That have most of the important features of marines.
You think they are top 5% at 10-11 ppm? That's cute. They're still trash, just less trashy.
And with this change, assault marines still suck, terminators still suck, devastators still suck, etc. I've just got a few more bodies to throw into the Xeno slaughter machine.
"Your blindly trying to sell that tac marines need to be competitive against the top 5% of all units"
No, just that balancing them against Xeno troops will always result in failure.
Ya know what is sad? It looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E.
They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
Not d3 usually
Not 36" range
Not assault
Not on platforms that can fly
Not on platforms with native -1 to hit
Not on platforms with 14" range
Not on platforms with t6
No it's not even close. On the one hand you rail against comparing units in a vacuum and then the next breath you try to do the same thing.
Two dev squads lose much effectiveness with each wound and they are wounded by everything. They have limited range, penalties for moving, limited movement....
You are honestly trolling at this point because there is no way you have played this game and think that two dev squads with grav cannons at 420 points are the answer to ravagers/raiders/fighters with dissi cannons...Hell 3 ravagers vs your squad kill you and there is nothing you can do about it (kites you @ 34" and shoots you until you die, which takes two turns for 3 ravagers who cost less than your useless grav devs...)
Now tell me how you hide them out of LOS and execute the perfect scissors trap to kill them with your tac squads coming out of rhinos that don't die to lances/blasters on the way in because your brilliant force concentration and drop podding sternguard...
Not d3 usually
Not 36" range
Not assault
Not on platforms that can fly
Not on platforms with native -1 to hit
Not on platforms with 14" range
Not on platforms with t6
No it's not even close. On the one hand you rail against comparing units in a vacuum and then the next breath you try to do the same thing.
Two dev squads lose much effectiveness with each wound and they are wounded by everything. They have limited range, penalties for moving, limited movement....
You are honestly trolling at this point because there is no way you have played this game and think that two dev squads with grav cannons at 420 points are the answer to ravagers/raiders/fighters with dissi cannons...Hell 3 ravagers vs your squad kill you and there is nothing you can do about it (kites you @ 34" and shoots you until you die, which takes two turns for 3 ravagers who cost less than your useless grav devs...)
Now tell me how you hide them out of LOS and execute the perfect scissors trap to kill them with your tac squads coming out of rhinos that don't die to lances/blasters on the way in because your brilliant force concentration and drop podding sternguard...
Hold up there and slow your roll. Can you point to where I said they were on equivalent units? Did I say that they were the answer to said units? I simply pointed out that marines can fairly easily achieve a similar level of firepower. Load them in Pods and it's very deliverable. Throw in a Chapter Master and you're more than offsetting the -1 moving hit.
If anything this should point out that it's not 40 Disintegrator shots that's the problem, but the distribution of them on squirrely units. So that's a bigger picture than originally portrayed. SM could drive that number to 80 shots without much trouble, though I'm pretty sure that's not the best idea.
(But if you're really curious, the way to hide Devastators out of LOS is Drop Pods. )
Martel732 wrote: Sisters stay at 9. That have most of the important features of marines.
You think they are top 5% at 10-11 ppm? That's cute. They're still trash, just less trashy.
And with this change, assault marines still suck, terminators still suck, devastators still suck, etc. I've just got a few more bodies to throw into the Xeno slaughter machine.
"Your blindly trying to sell that tac marines need to be competitive against the top 5% of all units"
No, just that balancing them against Xeno troops will always result in failure.
No I said your balancing them against the top outlier units
Drukari
Aldari
Imperial Soup
Chaos Soup
Mono Guard
Tau
Orks
Sisters
Necrons
Knights
Dark Angels
Blood Angles
Vanilla Marines
Grey Knights
Balance tacs against Aeldari and you screw 90% of non marine players.
Everyone in the 2nd teir gets screwed and imperial soup jumps to the OP outlier. Cheers for crowning a new OP mess that's like 7th edition.
nerf group 1 down to group 2
buff group 3/4 up to group 2
You then have a large group of viable Codex's instead of just a group of 1or 2 OP soup lists and a second tier that might be competitive.
What you're supposed to do is buff/nerf according the decent units in your codex. Those would be the units that, while they don't actively hurt your list and they can probably perform, you're likely better off with a better choice.
Right now Vanilla Marines, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are in a strange spot, as they don't have these units. It's either good or bust. The only real example I can think up would be the some of the Vets but that's about it. Every other codex doesn't suffer this issue because, as Martel did correctly point out, nobody else bases their units around a particular type of model and then price accordingly. CSM sorta does, but then has more differing units like Possessed and Obliterators and the Cult Marines.
Galef wrote: Ya know what is sad? It looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E.
They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
Yup, that's what happened. We lost so much with Primaris... Marines as unique and varied as we've known for ever will never be the same. If the meta shifts towards the Primaris statline, I will just play my painted classic marines as primaris. Sorry GW
Gitdakka wrote: The thought of 2w marines disguist me. But for all of you promoting it, have you considered marines getting a 2+ armour instead. Has the same effect against small arms as 2w and even helps against plasmas.
I think if you really had to improve marines durability, that would be the better solution. I would however prefer a small point decrease instead.
Why does the thought of a 600 lb space marine in power armor having 2 wounds disgust you? Compared to a 1 wound catachan in a tea shirt at 200 lb? or 95 lb kabalite? These models are not being properly represented - that kinda disgusts me. Why would you be disgusted by something so obviously right?
It disguists me from a game mechanichal standpoint, not in a fluff way. The game is not capable of representing true bolter porn fluff anyway as that would not make a practical game (1 marine rips aparts tanks and kill normal men or aliens by the dozen). I prefer the game to be fun rather than fluffy, and I just think 2w basic marines would turn small arms pointless. I would be satisfied with points rebalance (5ppm guard, 11ppm marines for example). Otherwise, why roll 40-60dice of lasguns/shootas if they barely kill one marine? I want action!
Okay so - you agree marines are bad - you just want to balance the game differently.
I have no problem with the marine staline/concept at all. I just think many other units are too cheap and marines might be overcosted a point or two. One more attack would be ok though to make them more consistent from shooting to close combat and to make gear like power weapons more compelling.
I care little for the fluff and would not mind if there were more marines on the table as that would look good anyways.
Galef wrote:Ya know what is sad? It looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E.
They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
I think you're right. GW attempted to address the criticisms often leveled at SM - size, wounds, attacks and underpowered bolters. They've been explicit about Primaris not replacing SM and they've segmented the rules (especially when it comes to transports) so there's now a choice. They even developed some headline fluff to justify these new 'reinforcements'. If it was always the long term plan to replace SM with Primaris then GW have made it very difficult for themselves.
Galef wrote:Ya know what is sad? It looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E. They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
I think you're right. GW attempted to address the criticisms often leveled at SM - size, wounds, attacks and underpowered bolters. They've been explicit about Primaris not replacing SM and they've segmented the rules (especially when it comes to transports) so there's now a choice. They even developed some headline fluff to justify these new 'reinforcements'.
If it was always the long term plan to replace SM with Primaris then GW have made it very difficult for themselves.
Or, they intentionally are making non-Primaris units look poor by comparison, so that when they eventually phase out non-Primaris units, few players will complain. Maybe, I dunno
They could actually do this decently well by giving Primaris Marines the same options, i.e. Intercessor having the same options as Tactical Marines. That way, players who haven't bought any Primaris units can just use their existing regular Marines.
Galef wrote:Ya know what is sad? It looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E.
They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
I think you're right. GW attempted to address the criticisms often leveled at SM - size, wounds, attacks and underpowered bolters. They've been explicit about Primaris not replacing SM and they've segmented the rules (especially when it comes to transports) so there's now a choice. They even developed some headline fluff to justify these new 'reinforcements'. If it was always the long term plan to replace SM with Primaris then GW have made it very difficult for themselves.
I'm just curious but where did GW say Primaris aren't going to replace normal marines? More to shut up the people making those claims then for my own reassurance
"Are all my current Space Marine miniatures redundant now?
No way! Primaris Space Marines do not replace regular (if a superhuman killing machine can be described as ‘regular’) Space Marines. These guys have a few extra genetic enhancements, thanks to Belisarius Cawl, and serve as additional reinforcements in the Adeptus Astartes arsenal, not replacements."
"Are all my current Space Marine miniatures redundant now?
No way! Primaris Space Marines do not replace regular (if a superhuman killing machine can be described as ‘regular’) Space Marines. These guys have a few extra genetic enhancements, thanks to Belisarius Cawl, and serve as additional reinforcements in the Adeptus Astartes arsenal, not replacements."
Yet in lore they also have said that normal marines can be "uplifted" to primaris if i'm not mistaken so 2-3 years down the line I can see normal marines being phased out....
I wish they had just grew a pair and said look, here a new true scale Marines, this is the new statline for marines, we will continue to sell normal sized marines for the foreseeable future, have fun...
Instead of coming up with some handwavium lore and leaving base marines as cannon fodder on the tabletop
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: What you're supposed to do is buff/nerf according the decent units in your codex. Those would be the units that, while they don't actively hurt your list and they can probably perform, you're likely better off with a better choice.
Right now Vanilla Marines, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are in a strange spot, as they don't have these units. It's either good or bust. The only real example I can think up would be the some of the Vets but that's about it. Every other codex doesn't suffer this issue because, as Martel did correctly point out, nobody else bases their units around a particular type of model and then price accordingly. CSM sorta does, but then has more differing units like Possessed and Obliterators and the Cult Marines.
Re Blood Angels - isn;t there a certain captain that does very well against most stuff?
Because we have all the snowflake rules for the super special chapters this hurts both them and Vanilla marines.
Just keep the very few actual special units and fold the rest back into the main Codex as a Marine option - so generic Marine Cavalry, Psychic dreadnoughts Termintors with full weapon options, Tac can have chainswords - catger for more than a couple of overblown Chapters. You don't then need to restrict the generic marine weapons etc.
Much more in keeping with the actual fluff of the variety of the Astartes.
Corennus wrote: Halve all damage suffered on them and have them ignore any damage from weapons that are -AP1
So, in other words, screw off Nurgle Daemons? The only sources of AP in a pure Nurgle Daemons list are GUO (which are bad) and Heralds (which are good, but also only 4 wounds apiece unless you take unique ones).
Corennus wrote: Halve all damage suffered on them and have them ignore any damage from weapons that are -AP1
So, in other words, screw off Nurgle Daemons? The only sources of AP in a pure Nurgle Daemons list are GUO (which are bad) and Heralds (which are good, but also only 4 wounds apiece unless you take unique ones).
I think he means ignoring 1 modifier per AP. So Termies treat AP-2 as -1 and AP-1 as 0.
I'd like to see the 5++ be removed (as it's pretty irrelevant on 2+ armour) and replace with a rule that reduces damage by 1 to min 1.
It essentially give them +1W, but only against multi-damage weapons. D1 weapons sill still treat Termies as only having 2Ws
Corennus wrote: Halve all damage suffered on them and have them ignore any damage from weapons that are -AP1
So, in other words, screw off Nurgle Daemons? The only sources of AP in a pure Nurgle Daemons list are GUO (which are bad) and Heralds (which are good, but also only 4 wounds apiece unless you take unique ones).
I think he means ignoring 1 modifier per AP. So Termies treat AP-2 as -1 and AP-1 as 0.
I'd like to see the 5++ be removed (as it's pretty irrelevant on 2+ armour) and replace with a rule that reduces damage by 1 to min 1.
It essentially give them +1W, but only against multi-damage weapons. D1 weapons sill still treat Termies as only having 2Ws
-
The way it was phrased, he seemed to be saying they completely ignore damage from AP0 things.
If that's what was intended, feth no.
If I misread it and he just wants them to have a 1+, that's fine.
1+ Armour for Termies is a pretty good fix, but it make the 5++ even more irrelevant.
Give Termies 1+ armour and swap the 5++ for reducing damage by 1. So overcharged plasma only does 1 damage
Marine units cannot be fixed by blanket stat changes as they propagate to too many special snow-flake chapters.
Those DG termies hit hard as feth but that's because they have a million special rules/weapons ontop of a basic termie. You boost that basic termie and then those DG termies become broken.
The design of SM is dumb. Using the same unit across (6-7?) codexes all with their own special rules/weapons was a terribly lazy design and can't be addressed without addressing the needs of those units in each damn codex.
The only viable fix is to give special rules per codex, like strats or tactics, that attempt to balance that particular armies build. CSM being able to saturate with special weapons means a 2+BS disproportionately benefits them. +1 wound turns those nurgle guys into something really scary. Both of those onto UM termies barely makes them playable...
bananathug wrote: Marine units cannot be fixed by blanket stat changes as they propagate to too many special snow-flake chapters.
Those DG termies hit hard as feth but that's because they have a million special rules/weapons ontop of a basic termie. You boost that basic termie and then those DG termies become broken.
Agreed, which is why you apply the blanket stat changes, them repoint those special snow-flake units appropriately.
Give all TEQs 1+ armour, then DG Termies need a points increase, obviously. Convenient that they have their own datasheet in their own codex to do this with.
bananathug wrote: Marine units cannot be fixed by blanket stat changes as they propagate to too many special snow-flake chapters.
Those DG termies hit hard as feth but that's because they have a million special rules/weapons ontop of a basic termie. You boost that basic termie and then those DG termies become broken.
Agreed, which is why you apply the blanket stat changes, them repoint those special snow-flake units appropriately.
Give all TEQs 1+ armour, then DG Termies need a points increase, obviously. Convenient that they have their own datasheet in their own codex to do this with.
-
It's easier to give out a fix that doesn't require another analysis on top of a fix to see if there's even more fixes.
That's why I'm strictly promoting WS/BS2+ on all Terminators bar the Troop Grey Knight ones. You don't need to really adjust price on Chaos variants once you've done that!
They have a 2+ save. No modifiers for anything. A straight 2+ save.
So they get hit by a bolter round. 2+ save
They get hit by an AP-4 weapon. 2+ save
Or in other words are waaaaaay to durable for specific anti armour and anti Teq weapons and essentially making them obsolete and adding to the fact that massed Lasgun/ autogun/ splinter/bolterfire will be the solution against terminators which is allready the problem?
Instead why not do the following. Any weapon with ap-2 or -1 get's treated as having no effect and a buff of the invuln to 4+?
"Are all my current Space Marine miniatures redundant now?
No way! Primaris Space Marines do not replace regular (if a superhuman killing machine can be described as ‘regular’) Space Marines. These guys have a few extra genetic enhancements, thanks to Belisarius Cawl, and serve as additional reinforcements in the Adeptus Astartes arsenal, not replacements."
Yet in lore they also have said that normal marines can be "uplifted" to primaris if i'm not mistaken so 2-3 years down the line I can see normal marines being phased out....
I wish they had just grew a pair and said look, here a new true scale Marines, this is the new statline for marines, we will continue to sell normal sized marines for the foreseeable future, have fun...
Instead of coming up with some handwavium lore and leaving base marines as cannon fodder on the tabletop
Or regular space marines become the normal marines / intitate levels and primaris become elites core of the chapter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Make it 21 pts per model, drop SB to 1 pt.
Base loadout cost is 34 ppm.
Working from intercessor: 18 pt + 1(+1 Sv) - 1(-1 M) + 2(5++) + 1(Deepstrike) = 21 ppm Working from aggressor: 21 pt +1(Deepstrike) - 1(-1 T) = 21 ppm
Options to also give :
Give Terminator's Relentless special rule
Giving terminators options to take older technology or heavy plasma cannons (so buff plasma cannons to be the best plasma weapon for the space marines....) (Cyclone missile launcher fires two rockets +1 strength -1 ap)
Giving termies reasonable stats for 'veterancy'. Ensure their costs are not abysmal, give them options to take land raiders as a transport (and droppings it costs tremendously)
Two simple changes (I hope they would be), would be to insert some guff about the armour being designed based on resisting hazardous environments, such as toxins or micro-meteorites. Then say whenever the model with terminator armour takes a wounding hit, reduce the wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1.
2 wound and to a lesser extent D3 wound weapons would be far less of a problem.
The second would be a universal marine boost. Any Astarte's bolter has an additional -1 to account for the larger calibers used. Bolt pistols, Bolters and Storm Bolters to -1, Bolt Rifles to -2. Chaos and Imperial.
So, i got bored and decided to see how different buffs would change the number of wounds terminators would take from a few different weapons. All numbers and figures in the attached pic for 100 shots (not damage done ) with a BS3+.
Has anyone suggested increasing their toughness? I always find it strange they have the same toughness as their power armoured brethren and it'd help with small arms fire getting through.
It wouldn't be as good as giving them a reroll failed saves. if you look at the pic above, bumping them to T5 would be the same against S4 weapons as the opponent getting a -1 to their wound rolls,
Djangomatic82 wrote: It wouldn't be as good as giving them a reroll failed saves. if you look at the pic above, bumping them to T5 would be the same against S4 weapons as the opponent getting a -1 to their wound rolls,
Do they need reroll failed saves though?
I thought the intention of this topic was to make Terminators strong against small arms fire (as they should be). Lowering the damage of weapons by 1 makes them stronger against multi-damage weapons (that are designed to be strong against them) and reroll failed saves makes them stronger against all weaponry.
Djangomatic82 wrote: It wouldn't be as good as giving them a reroll failed saves. if you look at the pic above, bumping them to T5 would be the same against S4 weapons as the opponent getting a -1 to their wound rolls,
Sure, but re-rolls are a gak lazy game design mechanic (one GW is unfortunately stoked about), and adds time to an already lengthy game. The re-roll is the powdered cheese thrown on something because someone couldn't be assed to create something decent.
Djangomatic82 wrote: It wouldn't be as good as giving them a reroll failed saves. if you look at the pic above, bumping them to T5 would be the same against S4 weapons as the opponent getting a -1 to their wound rolls,
Do they need reroll failed saves though?
I thought the intention of this topic was to make Terminators strong against small arms fire (as they should be). Lowering the damage of weapons by 1 makes them stronger against multi-damage weapons (that are designed to be strong against them) and reroll failed saves makes them stronger against all weaponry.
Another thing to consider is the cost of those shots to findout where terminators give away a lot of points for minimal cost to the opposition.
Djangomatic82 wrote: It wouldn't be as good as giving them a reroll failed saves. if you look at the pic above, bumping them to T5 would be the same against S4 weapons as the opponent getting a -1 to their wound rolls,
Do they need reroll failed saves though?
I thought the intention of this topic was to make Terminators strong against small arms fire (as they should be). Lowering the damage of weapons by 1 makes them stronger against multi-damage weapons (that are designed to be strong against them) and reroll failed saves makes them stronger against all weaponry.
Terminators are already durable against small arms fire. What are you going on about?
Due to the AP system and prevalence of D2 weapons, Termies are not as durable to ANY class of weapons as they should be. If Plasmas were as rare on the TT as they are supposed to be in the fluff, Termies might be fine. They might do fine against regular bolters as-is, but there are factions that can throw buckets of dice at them.
Termies need at least 2 of the following to be viable again, preferable all 3: 1) 1+ armour. Doesn't do much against AP-0 as 1s would still fail, but it really helps against AP-1 or AP-2 2) Crux Terminatus should reduce damage by 1 instead of give 5++. If you have a 1+ armour, a 5++ probably won't come into play at all, so trading it to reduce damage actually makes it do what it's supposed to: Keep the Termies alive longer 3) WS/BS 2+. This could be made to only apply WS 2+ to Assualt Termies and BS2+s to regulars. It would mean regular Termies with fists would still be BS3+ (hitting on 4s because fists) but if you want Termies that assault well, get Assault Termies
skchsan wrote: ooooooor....... you can just cost them for what they're actually worth and not prixed because [reasons].
Ultimately this is our best hope with CA. It just feels weird that a single Plasma gun can outright kill 2 Termies, even if they were cheaper. A plasma gun taking out 1 Termies makes sense, but with reroll 1s everywhere, it's too easy for a plasma gun to get into RF range and blast away 2 Termies
Galef wrote: Due to the AP system and prevalence of D2 weapons, Termies are not as durable to ANY class of weapons as they should be. If Plasmas were as rare on the TT as they are supposed to be in the fluff, Termies might be fine.
They might do fine against regular bolters as-is, but there are factions that can throw buckets of dice at them.
Termies need at least 2 of the following to be viable again, preferable all 3:
1) 1+ armour. Doesn't do much against AP-0 as 1s would still fail, but it really helps against AP-1 or AP-2
2) Crux Terminatus should reduce damage by 1 instead of give 5++. If you have a 1+ armour, a 5++ probably won't come into play at all, so trading it to reduce damage actually makes it do what it's supposed to: Keep the Termies alive longer
3) WS/BS 2+. This could be made to only apply WS 2+ to Assualt Termies and BS2+s to regulars. It would mean regular Termies with fists would still be BS3+ (hitting on 4s because fists) but if you want Termies that assault well, get Assault Termies
-
Once again, I have to point out that durability isn't the issue here. They're more durable to more weapons than ever before compared to the weapons they're less durable against.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, I have to point out that durability isn't the issue here. They're more durable to more weapons than ever before compared to the weapons they're less durable against.
Durability absolutely is part of the issue. Even if you bump them to WS/BS2+ and knock a few points off of them, you still have the issue that they will die prior to getting to used that improved WS/BS more than once. I wholeheartedly agree that their damage output is abysmal, but the longer they live, the more damage they do. There is no way CA would make them so cheap that you could get twice as many. More likely, you'll be able to add a whopping 1 more Termie per unit (so 6 would cost what 5 do now) but no one would add that 6th Termie, so their damage output didn't change at all (aside for the proposed WS/BS bump)
So you'll have 5 Termies that do the same damage and the points you saved would go somewhere else in your list. Meanwhile, those 5 termies still die. So how was their damage output increased? Living an extra turn (or diverting more enemy firepower) guarantees that your army gets to lay down more damage next turn (unless your already tabled)
The proposed rules being thrown around suggest that people want them to survive AT weapons, which is completely silly in terms of scaling and/or fluff
For example, we have the proposed fix of taking of a damage to a minimum of 1. In theory it sounds nice. However, Terminators would now:
1. Have a 1/3 chance to survive a Lascannon or Melta or Lance shot compared to the previous 1/6
2. Force Weapons and Custodes Weapons only kill them 1/3 of the time
3. Power Fists only kill them 1/3 of the time
That's just a few off the top of my head where it doesn't match fluff for weapons that were supposed to not have that many issues. Strictly D2 Weapons are the issue here, plain and simple, as they can come super cheap (the Disintegrator is easily one of the biggest point mistakes GW has done in a long time) and Plasma comes so cheap on Guard units you don't care about losing some to get the better profile.
Sure, they're less durable to certain weapons this edition. However, for the most part they either stayed the same or became MUCH more durable. That's why when I tell people to create a list of weapons they're less durable to compared to a list of weapons they're more durable to...people don't do it.
That's also why I am suggesting removing the 5++ entirely for the reduce damage by 1 rule. It ends up averaging out against D6 weapons, but has a significant affect on D2 only
Alternatively having 1+ armour works too. It makes the 5++ almost never relevant, but it really crippled AP-1/-2 weapons (which is where the armour should really work). AP-3 and beyond still gets through the armour 50% of the time, which is where most D2+ weapons are already.
Either charge works really well. Then add WS/BS2+ and your done. Points reduction is optional at this point, but probably not needed
Personally, I'd be happy if GW just did something like the following to them, even keeping everything costed as they are now, at parity with aggressors, just the terminator heavy weapon options accounting for the rather large point difference. The option to take a squad of 3 models instead of 5, with a heavy weapon option for every 2 instead of 5 terminators would make the normal squad a compelling anti tank unit with a cyclone missile launcher, though admittedly expensive.
skchsan wrote: ooooooor....... you can just cost them for what they're actually worth and not prixed because [reasons].
Ultimately this is our best hope with CA. It just feels weird that a single Plasma gun can outright kill 2 Termies, even if they were cheaper.
A plasma gun taking out 1 Termies makes sense, but with reroll 1s everywhere, it's too easy for a plasma gun to get into RF range and blast away 2 Termies
-
Termies need to be reduced by 8ppm for them to start looking like they're worth taking. 26 pts for T4 W2 2+/5++ Sv is far too expensive.
Matter of fact, moat 2W models need points revision as it follows the model of "double the cost of W1 equivalent", which clearly isn't working.
Galef wrote: That's also why I am suggesting removing the 5++ entirely for the reduce damage by 1 rule. It ends up averaging out against D6 weapons, but has a significant affect on D2 only
Alternatively having 1+ armour works too. It makes the 5++ almost never relevant, but it really crippled AP-1/-2 weapons (which is where the armour should really work). AP-3 and beyond still gets through the armour 50% of the time, which is where most D2+ weapons are already.
Either charge works really well. Then add WS/BS2+ and your done. Points reduction is optional at this point, but probably not needed
-
While I get what your saying Deathguard Terminators would be an unkillable mess it also has some problematic interactions with catafract armour who's defining feature is a 4++, to be clear it still sucks but deathguard T5 2W and 5+++ rocking T5 1+ armour -1D damn they are going to be a PITA as a D3 weapons wound stop avaraging a dead termi, lascannons will only kill them 1/6 of the time they hit ouch.
Galef wrote: That's also why I am suggesting removing the 5++ entirely for the reduce damage by 1 rule. It ends up averaging out against D6 weapons, but has a significant affect on D2 only
Alternatively having 1+ armour works too. It makes the 5++ almost never relevant, but it really crippled AP-1/-2 weapons (which is where the armour should really work). AP-3 and beyond still gets through the armour 50% of the time, which is where most D2+ weapons are already.
Either charge works really well. Then add WS/BS2+ and your done. Points reduction is optional at this point, but probably not needed
-
While I get what your saying Deathguard Terminators would be an unkillable mess it also has some problematic interactions with catafract armour who's defining feature is a 4++, to be clear it still sucks but deathguard T5 2W and 5+++ rocking T5 1+ armour -1D damn they are going to be a PITA as a D3 weapons wound stop avaraging a dead termi, lascannons will only kill them 1/6 of the time they hit ouch.
Important to note that I am specifically suggesting the Crux Terminus ability go from 5++ to -1D. DG Termies do not have a Crux Terminus ability, so maybe they stay as-is. I now feel like 1+ Armour and -1D should be separate "fixes" that probably don't need to happen at the same time. (even though 1+ armour basically makes a 5++ irrelevant 99% of the time) "Special" Termies will always need special attention when discussing sweeping changes. I take that as a given and propose rules from that standpoint.
But as much as I would like rules and abilities to be changed to better represent Termies, at this point, it's more likely to just be points changes, which is better than nothing I'd say at least a 30% decrease for all TEQs would feel about right
Galef wrote: But as much as I would like rules and abilities to be changed to better represent Termies, at this point, it's more likely to just be points changes, which is better than nothing
I'd say at least a 30% decrease for all TEQs would feel about right
Right, which is about 8 pts less.
Also to tack on, I feel like along with the changes with twin-linked [weapon] becoming twin-[weapon], there needs to be more distinction in terms of points and functionality between storm bolter and twin-boltgun. Twin-boltgun should be 24" RP 2 @ 2 pts and make stormbolters into 18" Assault 3 @ 1 pt.
skchsan wrote: Also to tack on, I feel like along with the changes with twin-linked [weapon] becoming twin-[weapon], there needs to be more distinction in terms of points and functionality between storm bolter and twin-boltgun. Twin-boltgun should be 24" RP 2 @ 2 pts and make stormbolters into 18" Assault 3 @ 1 pt.
Yeah, I thought if funny that in 8E, Stormbolters, Twin-bolters and Combi-bolters are all exactly the same. Twin- & Combi- bolters are fine as the same thing, especially since the majority of either exist in different factions (Imperial and Chaos respectively) But Stormbolters should be different somehow and I like your suggestion. Gives them an extra shot outside 12", but unfortunately it's 1 less shot within 12' and no shots outside 18" I'd amend it to either 24" Assault 3, or 18" Assault 4
I also really want Heavy Bolters to be RP2 @ 36", but that's for a different thread.
Galef wrote: That's also why I am suggesting removing the 5++ entirely for the reduce damage by 1 rule. It ends up averaging out against D6 weapons, but has a significant affect on D2 only
Alternatively having 1+ armour works too. It makes the 5++ almost never relevant, but it really crippled AP-1/-2 weapons (which is where the armour should really work). AP-3 and beyond still gets through the armour 50% of the time, which is where most D2+ weapons are already.
Either charge works really well. Then add WS/BS2+ and your done. Points reduction is optional at this point, but probably not needed
-
While I get what your saying Deathguard Terminators would be an unkillable mess it also has some problematic interactions with catafract armour who's defining feature is a 4++, to be clear it still sucks but deathguard T5 2W and 5+++ rocking T5 1+ armour -1D damn they are going to be a PITA as a D3 weapons wound stop avaraging a dead termi, lascannons will only kill them 1/6 of the time they hit ouch.
Important to note that I am specifically suggesting the Crux Terminus ability go from 5++ to -1D.
DG Termies do not have a Crux Terminus ability, so maybe they stay as-is.
I now feel like 1+ Armour and -1D should be separate "fixes" that probably don't need to happen at the same time. (even though 1+ armour basically makes a 5++ irrelevant 99% of the time)
"Special" Termies will always need special attention when discussing sweeping changes. I take that as a given and propose rules from that standpoint.
But as much as I would like rules and abilities to be changed to better represent Termies, at this point, it's more likely to just be points changes, which is better than nothing
I'd say at least a 30% decrease for all TEQs would feel about right
-
That's the thing with the "special" Terminators. When these fixes are proposed, how universal can they be and do they scale well? That's why when fixing certain Power Armor Marines, you gotta keep in mind how to interact with Rubric and Plague Marines if you're looking at durability (which they're actually both fine at, but they most definitely lack on offense).
This again? I'd suggest the same thing to improve them as all the other "classic" marines.
1. +1 Attack all round (including on the Sarge)
2. Space Marines get to fire Bolt weapons double the number of times indicated on the profile
Additionally, for Terminators, I'd let them ignore movement when firing heavy weapons.
Separate, but related to the topic at hand: points increase for plasma guns. They're too cheap, and they're bloody everywhere, despite supposedly being rare.
One solution would be to make a separation between those units and their gear. Not all bolters/storm bolters, power armor, or terminator armor need to have the same in-game effect. For example, new armor marks and new ammo types for weapons that only adeptus astartes utilize. That could create variations between units without making blight or rubric terminators too powerful.
In order to accomplish some of that, the designers need to be able to change the background to incorporate the rules occasionally without creating the 'Cawl' effect. The reality of the current state of the game means that what was written for 40k back in the late 80's and throughout 90's isn't going to cover all the variations of units within each space marine or chaos space marine faction available now. It needs to be more mutable to the point of being able to introduce new units or gear and claim they've been in the story line for several millennia.
In regards to the plasma statement. Plasma is so ubiquitous because flame (and to a lesser extent, melta) weapons are so poor this edition. Those weapons need to be revised first. It's also pointless to attempt to use a 'fluff' excuse for limiting plasma in game. Very little of the background pertains to in-game value, space marines are a prime example.
Plas is just too good this edition. The IOM version of the 'perfect' termie killer got a safe profile, then got new, stronger overheating profile. Which got D2 the same time Termies went to W2. Even the Xeno Plas weapons got multidamage.
Bringing all Plas to D1 would do a lot to help termies. Dissies and Star Cannons might not be S8, but they're still too good at killing Termies while doing too well vs Vehicles and MCs too.
While it changes a lot more, Termies could help with a redo of killiness across the board. I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?
Galef wrote: That's also why I am suggesting removing the 5++ entirely for the reduce damage by 1 rule. It ends up averaging out against D6 weapons, but has a significant affect on D2 only
Alternatively having 1+ armour works too. It makes the 5++ almost never relevant, but it really crippled AP-1/-2 weapons (which is where the armour should really work). AP-3 and beyond still gets through the armour 50% of the time, which is where most D2+ weapons are already.
Either charge works really well. Then add WS/BS2+ and your done. Points reduction is optional at this point, but probably not needed
-
While I get what your saying Deathguard Terminators would be an unkillable mess it also has some problematic interactions with catafract armour who's defining feature is a 4++, to be clear it still sucks but deathguard T5 2W and 5+++ rocking T5 1+ armour -1D damn they are going to be a PITA as a D3 weapons wound stop avaraging a dead termi, lascannons will only kill them 1/6 of the time they hit ouch.
But Death Guard terminators should be more resilient than normal terminators like they are now. So if normal termis get some buff so should DG termis get the same buff or some different buff that keeps them as mech beter compared to normal termis as they are now.
Bharring wrote: Plas is just too good this edition. The IOM version of the 'perfect' termie killer got a safe profile, then got new, stronger overheating profile. Which got D2 the same time Termies went to W2. Even the Xeno Plas weapons got multidamage.
Bringing all Plas to D1 would do a lot to help termies. Dissies and Star Cannons might not be S8, but they're still too good at killing Termies while doing too well vs Vehicles and MCs too.
While it changes a lot more, Termies could help with a redo of killiness across the board. I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?
If we made overcharging Plasma only D1, would we do anything else for it to compensate (like AP-3 going to -4?) or is the jump to S8 enough to merit the risk of rolling 1s?
I'd argue that D2 is the whole reason for overcharging, so I'd prefer we just swap the points values for Plasma guns and Melta guns so that Meltas are cheaper then Plasma.
Maybe even make Plasmas and even 20ppm since they really are so versatile.
Galef wrote: If we made overcharging Plasma only D1, would we do anything else for it to compensate (like AP-3 going to -4?) or is the jump to S8 enough to merit the risk of rolling 1s?
I'd argue that D2 is the whole reason for overcharging, so I'd prefer we just swap the points values for Plasma guns and Melta guns so that Meltas are cheaper then Plasma.
Maybe even make Plasmas and even 20ppm since they really are so versatile.
-
Plasma Overcharge profile should be something like "the bearer suffers a mortal wound if it fails its hit roll" instead of having a 1 in 6 (or 1 in 36) chance of blowing up.
This way, it will compensate for lower BS models getting cheaper plasmas (as there are more inherent risk involved).
Bharring wrote: Plas is just too good this edition. The IOM version of the 'perfect' termie killer got a safe profile, then got new, stronger overheating profile. Which got D2 the same time Termies went to W2. Even the Xeno Plas weapons got multidamage.
Bringing all Plas to D1 would do a lot to help termies. Dissies and Star Cannons might not be S8, but they're still too good at killing Termies while doing too well vs Vehicles and MCs too.
While it changes a lot more, Termies could help with a redo of killiness across the board. I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?
Except it isn't the perfect Terminator killer if you don't Overcharge. Why would you even try and say that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: If we made overcharging Plasma only D1, would we do anything else for it to compensate (like AP-3 going to -4?) or is the jump to S8 enough to merit the risk of rolling 1s?
I'd argue that D2 is the whole reason for overcharging, so I'd prefer we just swap the points values for Plasma guns and Melta guns so that Meltas are cheaper then Plasma.
Maybe even make Plasmas and even 20ppm since they really are so versatile.
-
20 points is stupid.
A basic Tactical Marine squad becomes 85 points for ONE Plasma Gun. Plasma can at max go to 15 points, but other weapons are the real issue here. You could make the Plasma Gun 40 points, but nobody is gonna take the Melta Gun at 17 points still.
What if we divorced it from the hit roll to the wound roll. "On a natural roll of 1 to wound the bearer suffers 1 mortal wound."?
No re-roll or bonus to wound shenanigans, gets rid of negative to hit modifiers basically removing OC.
Would probably still need to swap prices of plasma and melta though.
That's actually not bad, but it does lower the chance to overheat. You inherently have more dice to roll to-hit then to-wound (as some to-hits do fail)
I'd like Plasma to "overheat" on natural rolls of 1 to-hit and cause a single MW. After that, you make them 17ppm and Meltas 13ppm (swap the points) and you are far closer to balanced. Give TEQs (even the DG ones) a 1+ armour and call it a day.
Bharring wrote: Plas is just too good this edition. The IOM version of the 'perfect' termie killer got a safe profile, then got new, stronger overheating profile. Which got D2 the same time Termies went to W2. Even the Xeno Plas weapons got multidamage.
Bringing all Plas to D1 would do a lot to help termies. Dissies and Star Cannons might not be S8, but they're still too good at killing Termies while doing too well vs Vehicles and MCs too.
While it changes a lot more, Termies could help with a redo of killiness across the board. I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?
Plasma is a kiddie toy next to Xeno weapons at this point. Especially when doom enters the picture. At least plasma has to get within 12" to really give me the business.
To illustrate the futility of focusing on plas, I've been laying waste to terminators with a deredeo and two stalkers. There are multiple points of failure, and plasma is not even the most aggregious imo.
The easiest fix would be to give all terminators SIA ammo like DW, but charge vanilla prices for them. That's pretty reasonable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why should Terminators get something that's a gimmick for another army?
Because its a good gimmick whose access should be increased, imo. SIA basically solves the bolter problem without introducing more wacky new crap. It also provides way more utility than merely BS 2+. Give Deathwatch some extra gimmicks beyond SIA to compensate. Perhaps a defensive gimmick?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why should Terminators get something that's a gimmick for another army?
Because its a good gimmick whose access should be increased, imo. SIA basically solves the bolter problem without introducing more wacky new crap. It also provides way more utility than merely BS 2+. Give Deathwatch some extra gimmicks beyond SIA to compensate. Perhaps a defensive gimmick?
Or just cost them appropriately and not just slap on "double the price of 1W model because it has 2W" mentality.
To make them more viable, make them cheaper, able to be taken as troops, deep strike then move d6" or make them harder to wound.
A straight up toughness buff may do the trick, but more unconventional method may give them a niche back.
A terminator suffers half the wounds (rounded down) allocated to it.
-or-
Wound rolls vs terminators suffer a -1 penalty to wound.
Do wonder if terminators would be more worthwhile with better terrain rules.
they appear designed for fighting in very dense terrain where an enemy cannot bring weight of numbers of heavy weapons in any quantity to the fight, then allowing them to play the odds over a much smaller number of much less well equipped models.
perhaps their day will come if 40k ever gets decent workable terrain rules?
I've just built a squad of the normal ones, without huge hopes for them but I like the models, the "plan" such as it is, is to use them to try and take terrain, ideally about as far from heavy artillery as possible.
and no doubt they will still die, but they will look good while doing it.
Do think they should reduce incoming damage by one, to a minimum of one (so D2 weapons become D1 against them) and a 1+ save to ignore the first point of AP would be nice.
the role as I see it is dense urban fighting, on an open field anti tank weapons should make a mockery of them and rightly do, give then terrain that blocks line of sight and the "Yahtzee" effect with a bit of luck is diluted as well.
one Idea I wonder on is allowing them to teleport closer to the enemy, say 9"+ as usual, but able to drop at 6"+ at a cost of a mortal wound on say a 5+, one dice per model - call it something to do with the way their armour allows a much more powerful teleport to be used or something - in effect give terminators, and just terminators something different so they get that drop - shoot - charge a bit more often, even if they die the turn after
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why should Terminators get something that's a gimmick for another army?
Because its a good gimmick whose access should be increased, imo. SIA basically solves the bolter problem without introducing more wacky new crap. It also provides way more utility than merely BS 2+. Give Deathwatch some extra gimmicks beyond SIA to compensate. Perhaps a defensive gimmick?
So basically:
1. Give a gimmick for one army to a unit because you think it should be totally generic
2. Not consider Assault Terminators, Blightlords, Scarabs, Paladins, and Deathshroud
3. THEN to compensate you want to give Deathwatch another mechanic to compensate for their mechanic being more generic
Don't you see how terribly long-winded that is? Not even Custodes get Special Ammunition, and I certainly haven't suggested ANYTHING wacky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gealgain wrote: To make them more viable, make them cheaper, able to be taken as troops, deep strike then move d6" or make them harder to wound.
A straight up toughness buff may do the trick, but more unconventional method may give them a niche back.
A terminator suffers half the wounds (rounded down) allocated to it.
-or-
Wound rolls vs terminators suffer a -1 penalty to wound.
Then a Lascannon wouldn't kill a Terminator half the time. Terrible idea.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why should Terminators get something that's a gimmick for another army?
Because its a good gimmick whose access should be increased, imo. SIA basically solves the bolter problem without introducing more wacky new crap. It also provides way more utility than merely BS 2+. Give Deathwatch some extra gimmicks beyond SIA to compensate. Perhaps a defensive gimmick?
Or just cost them appropriately and not just slap on "double the price of 1W model because it has 2W" mentality.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why should Terminators get something that's a gimmick for another army?
Because its a good gimmick whose access should be increased, imo. SIA basically solves the bolter problem without introducing more wacky new crap. It also provides way more utility than merely BS 2+. Give Deathwatch some extra gimmicks beyond SIA to compensate. Perhaps a defensive gimmick?
So basically:
1. Give a gimmick for one army to a unit because you think it should be totally generic
2. Not consider Assault Terminators, Blightlords, Scarabs, Paladins, and Deathshroud
3. THEN to compensate you want to give Deathwatch another mechanic to compensate for their mechanic being more generic
Don't you see how terribly long-winded that is? Not even Custodes get Special Ammunition, and I certainly haven't suggested ANYTHING wacky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gealgain wrote: To make them more viable, make them cheaper, able to be taken as troops, deep strike then move d6" or make them harder to wound.
A straight up toughness buff may do the trick, but more unconventional method may give them a niche back.
A terminator suffers half the wounds (rounded down) allocated to it.
-or-
Wound rolls vs terminators suffer a -1 penalty to wound.
Then a Lascannon wouldn't kill a Terminator half the time. Terrible idea.
I personally don't think they can be truly 'fixed' under the current rule set. I don't think WS 2+ BS 2+ is appropriate looking at units throughout the game, nor do I think those changes really addresses the true problems. Custodes, btw, should probably get SIA as well. I don't like how one little minor breakoff of an already tiny faction (marines) is the only one with effective ammunition. One city on one forgeworld could probably make enough SIA for every marine chapter, even if they were expanded back into legions. Marine chapters are TINY. I offered a reasonable thing other than a points drop. But the closest thing to something that would actually happen is a points drop. A big one, to reflect the reality of 8th ed firepower.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think Custodes could get Special Ammo as well, you should probably just leave the thread.
...Are you suggesting that giving Custodian infantry the ability to do almost nothing instead of just straight-up nothing in the Shooting phase is somehow unbalancing?
(Before you say "but bikes..." SIA doesn't apply to hurricane bolters in the Deathwatch book, and turning this into a "what would I like SIA on?" wishlist seems like going a bit off-topic.)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think Custodes could get Special Ammo as well, you should probably just leave the thread.
Why is that? I'd argue all marines should have SIA on everything, actually. Including inceptors and aggressors, which currently don't have it even in DW.
Discussing hapless terminators always spills over to the larger problem.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think Custodes could get Special Ammo as well, you should probably just leave the thread.
...Are you suggesting that giving Custodian infantry the ability to do almost nothing instead of just straight-up nothing in the Shooting phase is somehow unbalancing?
(Before you say "but bikes..." SIA doesn't apply to hurricane bolters in the Deathwatch book, and turning this into a "what would I like SIA on?" wishlist seems like going a bit off-topic.)
The basic Custodes has a -1AP D2 shooting attack.
So imagine the Watchmaster shooting except you get 2 shots to 1 of his. They kill just fine in the shooting phase the moment they have 2 or more wounds.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think Custodes could get Special Ammo as well, you should probably just leave the thread.
Why is that? I'd argue all marines should have SIA on everything, actually. Including inceptors and aggressors, which currently don't have it even in DW.
Discussing hapless terminators always spills over to the larger problem.
And your blanket fix is garbage and you should feel bad about even suggesting it. You proven you cannot scale. At all. Aggressors are already one of the only mathematically okay units. You just put them over the top.
Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
So does a Rhino, so I'm not seeing the point here. Also, that's assuming only 1 wound gets through. If 2 attacks successfully hit, wound and get through the armour, that Termie Cap is just as dead regardless of it being -1 damage. But if -1 damage isn't palatable for you, then give Termies 1+ armour. It makes their invul save completely pointless, but at least it "scales well"
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
So does a Rhino, so I'm not seeing the point here. Also, that's assuming only 1 wound gets through. If 2 attacks successfully hit, wound and get through the armour, that Termie Cap is just as dead regardless of it being -1 damage.
But if -1 damage isn't palatable for you, then give Termies 1+ armour. It makes their invul save completely pointless, but at least it "scales well"
-
A +1 Armor Save would scale better, but don't you think it makes SLIGHTLY more sense for a Rhino to survive being cleaved by a Knight than a little dude?
Hell, the damage rules for Calgar and Abigail scale terribly for that reason. They can both survive the Harpoon from a Knight!
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
So does a Rhino, so I'm not seeing the point here. Also, that's assuming only 1 wound gets through. If 2 attacks successfully hit, wound and get through the armour, that Termie Cap is just as dead regardless of it being -1 damage.
But if -1 damage isn't palatable for you, then give Termies 1+ armour. It makes their invul save completely pointless, but at least it "scales well"
-
A +1 Armor Save would scale better, but don't you think it makes SLIGHTLY more sense for a Rhino to survive being cleaved by a Knight than a little dude?
Hell, the damage rules for Calgar and Abigail scale terribly for that reason. They can both survive the Harpoon from a Knight!
Actually, the Harpoon deals an extra d3 mortal wounds. So unless they have 7 wounds... (Which they might-I'm AFB at the moment. If they do, they survive it 1/3 times.)
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
So does a Rhino, so I'm not seeing the point here. Also, that's assuming only 1 wound gets through. If 2 attacks successfully hit, wound and get through the armour, that Termie Cap is just as dead regardless of it being -1 damage.
But if -1 damage isn't palatable for you, then give Termies 1+ armour. It makes their invul save completely pointless, but at least it "scales well"
-
A +1 Armor Save would scale better, but don't you think it makes SLIGHTLY more sense for a Rhino to survive being cleaved by a Knight than a little dude?
Hell, the damage rules for Calgar and Abigail scale terribly for that reason. They can both survive the Harpoon from a Knight!
Actually, the Harpoon deals an extra d3 mortal wounds. So unless they have 7 wounds... (Which they might-I'm AFB at the moment. If they do, they survive it 1/3 times.)
Didn't it only do the extra D3 Mortal Wounds to vehicles?
Either way, that's still a case of horrible scaling and you know it.
CadianGateTroll wrote: How about we add toughness and Feel No Pain and reduce the cost to like an arbitrary 31pts and allow groups of 3 minimum instead of 5.
And then add more toughness and a better FNP to Blightlords and Deathshroud, and apply these supposed changes to Scarab Occult?
Once again you forgot the whole scaling thing huh?
The_Real_Chris wrote: Still think for termies they should get -1 damage to a minimum of 1. If that isn't enough they should get a 1+ save.
Then overall Astartes bolt pistol, bolter and storm bolter should get -1ap to account for better training and bigger caliber than the ones carried by human baseline troops.
I already explained why -1 to damage scales horribly. Terminator Captains now automatically survive being sawed in half by an Imperial Knight.
Well they are wearing tactical dreadnought armour, tougher than most imperial vehicles, can survive in plasma reactors etc. That seems fine and is hardly a new rule, Genestealer abominations have it as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plasma Reactors aren't the same thing as a projected plasma weapon, which is typically designed to KILL Terminators.
Also just because one unit has it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Abominations probably scale horribly for all I know too
Are you honestly insinuating that the reactor has less energy and power compared to a plasma bolt that flys through the air and therefore cooles?
To be fair, I think he's pointing out that a Plasma reactor has dispersed energy, while a plasma weapon is focused. While the reactor obviously has more energy, it's in a less concentrated area, while a plasma weapon is designed to punch its energy through at velocity
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plasma Reactors aren't the same thing as a projected plasma weapon, which is typically designed to KILL Terminators.
Also just because one unit has it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Abominations probably scale horribly for all I know too
Are you honestly insinuating that the reactor has less energy and power compared to a plasma bolt that flys through the air and therefore cooles?
To be fair, I think he's pointing out that a Plasma reactor has dispersed energy, while a plasma weapon is focused
A reactor? Directly inbuilt a ship? Multiple times as big and powerfull?
I know logic does not correctly apply to 40k but logic of scale is still relevant for cohesive background from which we derive the game itself.
So assuming that a pg is stronger than a plasma reactor going haywire is in said context more then, excuse me, silly, no?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plasma Reactors aren't the same thing as a projected plasma weapon, which is typically designed to KILL Terminators.
Also just because one unit has it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Abominations probably scale horribly for all I know too
Are you honestly insinuating that the reactor has less energy and power compared to a plasma bolt that flys through the air and therefore cooles?
To be fair, I think he's pointing out that a Plasma reactor has dispersed energy, while a plasma weapon is focused
A reactor? Directly inbuilt a ship? Multiple times as big and powerfull?
I know logic does not correctly apply to 40k but logic of scale is still relevant for cohesive background from which we derive the game itself.
So assuming that a pg is stronger than a plasma reactor going haywire is in said context more then, excuse me, silly, no?
Think of the equivalent of a room filled with nails (where stepping around might not hurt) compared to someone shooting at your feet with a nail gun.
At the end I think that a 1+ save (removing the redundant 5+ invulnerable save) may be enough (eventually with a small price cut). Keep in mind that, in cover /off cover, those "New" Termys save a Lascannon on 3+/4+... it seems fine to me.
Plus, they need to field 2 heavy weapons any 5 models, to recover for the (relative) lack of options available on the Sergeant. That's the less cascading bonus you can give, because will be applied only to standard terminator.
Finally, a 2+ to hit in close combat for Assault Terminator will be fine, I think... see the Gallant Knight: with 2+ is a good model, with 3+ it will be lacklustre.
I know that, with this little changes (double Heavy specifically) I'll start using my Deathwing again, instead of being always relying on the Deathwing Knight.
Cybtroll wrote: Plus, they need to field 2 heavy weapons any 5 models, to recover for the (relative) lack of options available on the Sergeant. That's the less cascading bonus you can give, because will be applied only to standard terminator.
I like this, but an alternative option would be to make Termies min size 3 models and allow 1 heavy weapon per 3. Then you give the Sgt the option for combi-weapons (like every other Sgt). So a full unit of 10 could have 3 Heavy weapons and a Combi-weapon (fun shenanigans for Combat Squads), or you could have a few min 3 units with 1 Heavy weapon each.
This, I feel, gives the unit the utility it so desperately needs.
Just realized there's 16 pages of details on this topic, thats pretty intense. What I came here to say was this - I think the extra wound would be favorable for termies, but also maybe something in line with the SlabShield rule that Ogryn Bodyguards have. They add 2 to any save rolls for a model equipped accordingly. The big problem imo with termies in 8th, is that awesome 2+ save isn't so awesome anymore when you realize that most everything has AP would very quickly chews away at what makes termies awesome.
eternalxfl wrote: The big problem imo with termies in 8th, is that awesome 2+ save isn't so awesome anymore when you realize that most everything has AP would very quickly chews away at what makes termies awesome.
Which is exactly why having a 1+ armour makes perfect sense and scales easily for all TEQs across all factions. 1s still fail, but having the extra little buffer helps when over 50% of the weapons being used have AP modifiers. In previous editions, the AP system only allowed for a small handful of weapons to affect Termies, who still had a 5++ to fall back on (but only 1 wound, so they died a lot still). But now even Heavy Bolters turn Termies into MEQs 1+ amour is really the 2nd most obvious solution (a dramatic points decrease being the 1st most obvious)
And GW could make the change easily enough in CA by listing out the names of every datasheet that is a TEQ and saying to change their datasheet to reflect a 1+ armour save.
CadianGateTroll wrote: How about we add toughness and Feel No Pain and reduce the cost to like an arbitrary 31pts and allow groups of 3 minimum instead of 5.
And then add more toughness and a better FNP to Blightlords and Deathshroud, and apply these supposed changes to Scarab Occult?
Once again you forgot the whole scaling thing huh?
Nah man then Blightlords and death shrouds and scarab occults already have the buffs i suggested.
Loyalist terminator marines get to cheat by having cake and eating it. Loyalist terminators should get all that for free like how they got free transports from bogus Gladius Formations. All because the "Good" guys are supposed to win and SM used to be the poster child of GW.
GW doesnt care to balance the game, just push sales with over powered rules.
I like the 1+ save suggestion, and don't reckon it would make them excessively resilient.
Also reckon two heavy weapons per five guys would be fine too, although I'd more excited to see storm bolters (and all the other bolt weapons tbh) be more effective in the hands of marines, so the bolter guys aren't just serving as ablative wounds for the snazzy guys. My preferred option would be bumping up the rate of fire.
Not Online!!! wrote: Terrible analogy slayer,
A better one would be the comparison of ground zero between a bomb and a nuclear bomb.
Also would -2 on AP really be that devastating? I think not and mind you that would only be reached by rubric terminators.
Dispersed energy vs a focused shot. The analogy is fine, as much as you hate it. Plasma Guns have ALWAYS been designated Terminator killers but it wasn't ever one of their primary issues. Now that they're the most durable they've been in years, we need to up the offensive output plain and simple.
CadianGateTroll wrote: How about we add toughness and Feel No Pain and reduce the cost to like an arbitrary 31pts and allow groups of 3 minimum instead of 5.
And then add more toughness and a better FNP to Blightlords and Deathshroud, and apply these supposed changes to Scarab Occult?
Once again you forgot the whole scaling thing huh?
Nah man then Blightlords and death shrouds and scarab occults already have the buffs i suggested.
Loyalist terminator marines get to cheat by having cake and eating it. Loyalist terminators should get all that for free like how they got free transports from bogus Gladius Formations. All because the "Good" guys are supposed to win and SM used to be the poster child of GW.
GW doesnt care to balance the game, just push sales with over powered rules.
Well this is the proposed rules forum. If your fix is bad, it's bad.
It's probably been mentioned before, but I'd like to see termies with 3 wounds, an extra attack and the ability to ignore heavy weapon penalties (including power fists). And min squads of 3 too. Maybe some way to bump them to 4++ via a stratagem like knights. Or just 4++ all the time. Or maybe a stratagem that gives +1 to armor instead. So instead of 1+ sv all the time, you can negate some AP if you really need to.
Dandelion wrote: It's probably been mentioned before, but I'd like to see termies with 3 wounds, an extra attack and the ability to ignore heavy weapon penalties (including power fists). And min squads of 3 too. Maybe some way to bump them to 4++ via a stratagem like knights. Or just 4++ all the time. Or maybe a stratagem that gives +1 to armor instead. So instead of 1+ sv all the time, you can negate some AP if you really need to.
Extra attack should def happen across the board for all marines. Ignore movement penalties for heavy weapons should def happen too.
The problem with letting them ignore the powerfist penalty is that 1. You end up with two specific rules contradicting one another (i.e. the powerfist making you subtract 1 from your hit roll and the terminator ignoring it), which feels a bit clunky; and 2. It renders the sergeant having a powersword completely pointless. Personally, I think the extra attack is enough of a boost so I’d be inclined to leave it alone.
Extra-wound-wise, it wouldn’t greatly upset me but you probably need to consider the knock-on effect it has for things like Nurgle Termies. Tbh I think the real problem with 2W Terminators is how cheap and readily-available plasma weaponry is. Fix that and it’s less of an issue.
Dandelion wrote: It's probably been mentioned before, but I'd like to see termies with 3 wounds, an extra attack and the ability to ignore heavy weapon penalties (including power fists). And min squads of 3 too. Maybe some way to bump them to 4++ via a stratagem like knights. Or just 4++ all the time. Or maybe a stratagem that gives +1 to armor instead. So instead of 1+ sv all the time, you can negate some AP if you really need to.
Extra attack should def happen across the board for all marines. Ignore movement penalties for heavy weapons should def happen too.
The problem with letting them ignore the powerfist penalty is that 1. You end up with two specific rules contradicting one another (i.e. the powerfist making you subtract 1 from your hit roll and the terminator ignoring it), which feels a bit clunky; and 2. It renders the sergeant having a powersword completely pointless. Personally, I think the extra attack is enough of a boost so I’d be inclined to leave it alone.
Extra-wound-wise, it wouldn’t greatly upset me but you probably need to consider the knock-on effect it has for things like Nurgle Termies. Tbh I think the real problem with 2W Terminators is how cheap and readily-available plasma weaponry is. Fix that and it’s less of an issue.
That was why one of the suggestions was to make them WS2+, BS2+ to allow them to be more reliable with their minimal damage output, while still allowing Lightingclaws and sword to have a better chance of hitting more but being less damaging.
2+ WS and BS would solve the damage output issue, but wouldn't solve the fragility.
Though as said before, I think it's mainly plasma fault, plasma needs a nerf anyway.
BoomWolf wrote: 2+ WS and BS would solve the damage output issue, but wouldn't solve the fragility.
Though as said before, I think it's mainly plasma fault, plasma needs a nerf anyway.
Agreed, plasma is just too cheap for its stats its a bargain price jack if all trades weapon, though disintegration cannons are similarly broken.
BoomWolf wrote: 2+ WS and BS would solve the damage output issue, but wouldn't solve the fragility.
Though as said before, I think it's mainly plasma fault, plasma needs a nerf anyway.
Agreed, plasma is just too cheap for its stats its a bargain price jack if all trades weapon, though disintegration cannons are similarly broken.
Plasma can maybe go back to its original price of 15 points, but Plasma is hardly the issue that makes them bad because not a lot of Plasma is being ran. Remember that Plasma wasn't the issue with Terminators last edition, and only if Overcharged they have the same exact durability.
Dandelion wrote: It's probably been mentioned before, but I'd like to see termies with 3 wounds, an extra attack and the ability to ignore heavy weapon penalties (including power fists). And min squads of 3 too. Maybe some way to bump them to 4++ via a stratagem like knights. Or just 4++ all the time. Or maybe a stratagem that gives +1 to armor instead. So instead of 1+ sv all the time, you can negate some AP if you really need to.
Extra attack should def happen across the board for all marines. Ignore movement penalties for heavy weapons should def happen too.
The problem with letting them ignore the powerfist penalty is that 1. You end up with two specific rules contradicting one another (i.e. the powerfist making you subtract 1 from your hit roll and the terminator ignoring it), which feels a bit clunky; and 2. It renders the sergeant having a powersword completely pointless. Personally, I think the extra attack is enough of a boost so I’d be inclined to leave it alone.
Extra-wound-wise, it wouldn’t greatly upset me but you probably need to consider the knock-on effect it has for things like Nurgle Termies. Tbh I think the real problem with 2W Terminators is how cheap and readily-available plasma weaponry is. Fix that and it’s less of an issue.
For me its still 1+ armour,
Happy with +1 Attack as well
If you also /or want to make them better with Power fists just change the stat line for that weapons for only those units - like how a Relic Glaive for a Succubus is better than a normal Glaive. Not all power fist users have to have the same stat line. Thats kinda the point of the new way of doing stat blocks I think - just that GW does not use it as much as they should.
Lastly get rid of all the pointless minor variations and make them all possible in the generic Terminator Squad usable by all marine codexes - one of the reasons they are currently bad is because they have to be worse than various snowflake versions. Many Chapters that are not so constantly indulged have equally special units as the Chosen Ones and nothing is actually being taken away from them anyway.
I think that by having a stratagem system in place, it lets GW somewhat balance the game on the fly as players could spend their CP's to open up new tactics and strategies. Do you think it's possible that we could see some form of balancing in this manner, specifically in regards to Termies? I think it could be possible to see a stratagem for specific factions that's somewhere along the lines of
"Terminator Protocols - 1 CP -
Use this stratagem before models are deployed. A target unit of terminators may pay half price for any combi weaponry".
or
"Terminator Armor - 1 CP -
Use this stratagem when a unit of Terminators are the target of an enemies attacks. Add 2 to their armor save until the end of the phase"
This is just an example, but I think it's do-able. What are everyone's thoughts on this, or something similar?
eternalxfl wrote: I think that by having a stratagem system in place, it lets GW somewhat balance the game on the fly as players could spend their CP's to open up new tactics and strategies. Do you think it's possible that we could see some form of balancing in this manner, specifically in regards to Termies? I think it could be possible to see a stratagem for specific factions that's somewhere along the lines of
"Terminator Protocols - 1 CP -
Use this stratagem before models are deployed. A target unit of terminators may pay half price for any combi weaponry".
or
"Terminator Armor - 1 CP -
Use this stratagem when a unit of Terminators are the target of an enemies attacks. Add 2 to their armor save until the end of the phase"
This is just an example, but I think it's do-able. What are everyone's thoughts on this, or something similar?
Although some units definitely come into their element in combination with a stratagem, it's not doing the game any favors to make a unit viable by relying on a stratagem. Currently 10 plas/Psword slaaneshi terminators are almost doable after using 2cp on endless cacophony and another on VotLW if buffed by Prescience, but are still outclassed by Obliterators. Points and weapon changes could do a lot to help.
I'm not sure exactly how to make a storm/combi bolter and powerfist be decent on any model, but there are plenty of things to tweak on UP units and wargear. Lets look at what I think its the worst part of the worst unit. Powerfists on standard SM Terminator kits.
Removing the -1hit on x2S weapons. They tend to give +1 to wound in exchange for -1 hit and then not be worth 12pts for 2 hits of -3ap d3D. My point being you shouldn't have to pay premium to break even. Chainfists are clearly overpriced for evening out the damage and adding 1AP. Lightning claws seem to be priced fine imo.
Something defensive. People seem to like ignoring 1ap, I don't like it since there are moderate 1ap weapons like heavy bolters, autocannons, ion weapons, gauss and shuriken which don't deserve for their functionality to be removed. Though when we make "across the board" changes I tend to think it's ok to exclude select units that would be taken too far. For example I'm fine with +1T and not giving it to deathguard terminators who already have that plus disgustingly resilient (remember that's on the datasheet, not the chapter tactic which is also on the popular wish list of thing to give termies) and good weapons. If there needs to be a points adjustment between the units after then that's fine.
Plasma still needs an adjustment, like 1MW on unmodified 1s before rerolls that way elite models like captains, bikers, terminators etc can take them without being a worse liability than a lesser model. Paired with removing the 2nd damage from overcharging. Less risk less reward but still plenty deadly to marines and even threatening vehicles by a dozen cuts and making melta ok at its job by comparison.
Marines getting +1A is commonly considered helpful to make them worth their cost and function as generalists. I agree but don't think Terminators should get a 3rd attack, instead its a good excuse to reduce the difference in point cost. The 5+ invuln is also something I'm fine with ditching to reduce points if there is another defensive measure added (not sure about cataphracti, DG stuff is just so much better than other factions equivalent units).
I think the devs should be realizing that giving one model literally twice the power of 2 is less effective than just using 2 models, so maybe we'll see some price decrease coming up.
Yes. and on that note I should probably state that I'm coming from the perspective of Chaos Terminators, specifically World Eaters terminators. I know our stock load outs are a little different. I typically don't waste time on power fists, I just stick with power axes, I'm not sure if that's a luxury the loyalist variants have.
Realistically, I can see GW taking the path of least resistance on these changes. The quickest change I see would be to continue with points changes for models and their weaponry. I think they could hit multiple points including more generic stratagems (I really think we're going to see the Kill Team universal stratagems come to 40k) as this would blanket all the armies giving new options and shaking up the meta. At the end of the day, I suppose we could see a stat line change - after all, I'm pretty sure Possessed got an extra would with the Codex FAQ when it came out.
Have we seen any instances from FAQ's or the previous Chapter Approved where GW blatantly added new USR's or wargear on a dataslate - and I'm not talking modified existing data, I'm talking added new rules altogether?
eternalxfl wrote: The big problem imo with termies in 8th, is that awesome 2+ save isn't so awesome anymore when you realize that most everything has AP would very quickly chews away at what makes termies awesome.
Which is exactly why having a 1+ armour makes perfect sense and scales easily for all TEQs across all factions. 1s still fail, but having the extra little buffer helps when over 50% of the weapons being used have AP modifiers.
In previous editions, the AP system only allowed for a small handful of weapons to affect Termies, who still had a 5++ to fall back on (but only 1 wound, so they died a lot still). But now even Heavy Bolters turn Termies into MEQs 1+ amour is really the 2nd most obvious solution (a dramatic points decrease being the 1st most obvious)
And GW could make the change easily enough in CA by listing out the names of every datasheet that is a TEQ and saying to change their datasheet to reflect a 1+ armour save.
-
Awesome thing is, you wouldn't have to list out all the datasheets, its even easier than that. Every terminator armour based unit in the game that I've seen has the TERMINATOR keyword. So simply add a rule that applies to TERMINATOR datatsheets and hey presto. Kinda like how the FLY rule works currently
eternalxfl wrote: The big problem imo with termies in 8th, is that awesome 2+ save isn't so awesome anymore when you realize that most everything has AP would very quickly chews away at what makes termies awesome.
Which is exactly why having a 1+ armour makes perfect sense and scales easily for all TEQs across all factions. 1s still fail, but having the extra little buffer helps when over 50% of the weapons being used have AP modifiers. In previous editions, the AP system only allowed for a small handful of weapons to affect Termies, who still had a 5++ to fall back on (but only 1 wound, so they died a lot still). But now even Heavy Bolters turn Termies into MEQs 1+ amour is really the 2nd most obvious solution (a dramatic points decrease being the 1st most obvious)
And GW could make the change easily enough in CA by listing out the names of every datasheet that is a TEQ and saying to change their datasheet to reflect a 1+ armour save.
-
Awesome thing is, you wouldn't have to list out all the datasheets, its even easier than that. Every terminator armour based unit in the game that I've seen has the TERMINATOR keyword. So simply add a rule that applies to TERMINATOR datatsheets and hey presto. Kinda like how the FLY rule works currently
Oh yeah, that would be cool. But what about things like Obliterators, Mutilators, etc that are TEQs, but I don't think they the TERMINATOR keyword? Arguably they do not need it as those particular examples already have a 3rd wound, but I am sure there are other examples. Do any Custodes units that the TERMINATOR keyword? Maybe it would be good for them NOT to have the 1+ armour since they're already good and their armour is technically different
Man, now I really, really want this change to happen. It's literally and easy 1 line fix: "All units with the TERMINATOR keyword have their armour save characteristic changed from 2+ to 1+" Well, maybe 2 lines as I'm sure they'd need to "Note, rolls of 1 still fail"
I'll post this again as I pretty much think this would solve most of their problems while giving them a decent niche as an anti tank infantry option with 4X S8 AP-2 damage D6 shots if they stood still with a 50 point cyclone missile launcher. Using the current points cost, they would be at point and utility parity with both devastators and aggressors, as they would have less total high AT shots and diversity than Devastators and a lower total volume of shots than Aggressors, but being significantly more durable and able to deepstrike. Keep in mind that with a Assault Cannon and the double fire ability, they are still a more expensive platform than a TwAC Razerback.
Oh yeah, that would be cool.
But what about things like Obliterators, Mutilators, etc that are TEQs, but I don't think they the TERMINATOR keyword?
Arguably they do not need it as those particular examples already have a 3rd wound, but I am sure there are other examples.
Do any Custodes units that the TERMINATOR keyword? Maybe it would be good for them NOT to have the 1+ armour since they're already good and their armour is technically different
Man, now I really, really want this change to happen. It's literally and easy 1 line fix:
"All units with the TERMINATOR keyword have their armour save characteristic changed from 2+ to 1+"
Well, maybe 2 lines as I'm sure they'd need to "Note, rolls of 1 still fail"
Yeah it would leave anything out that doesn't have the keyword, like Obilterators. But honestly I think thats a good thing. Good ol' fashioned Terminator armour needs something to differentiate them from being "just another 2+ save infantry squad". Being the absolute gold standard in durability again would do that, partly at least.
Obliterators are pretty decent right now anyway, and anything else which is similar but not keyworded TERMINATOR could just be sorted out case by case in erratas and CA. Again I think the beauty of this change is its simplicity - GW are obviously keen to make easy sweeping changes instead of detailed, granular changes, and this change does exactly that while also making use of their flash new keyword system, which Im sure they are happy to flaunt some more.
Custodes don't have the keyword, aside from Allarus Terminators which do (and need the same love that Marine Termies do).
Oh yeah, that would be cool.
But what about things like Obliterators, Mutilators, etc that are TEQs, but I don't think they the TERMINATOR keyword?
Arguably they do not need it as those particular examples already have a 3rd wound, but I am sure there are other examples.
Do any Custodes units that the TERMINATOR keyword? Maybe it would be good for them NOT to have the 1+ armour since they're already good and their armour is technically different
Man, now I really, really want this change to happen. It's literally and easy 1 line fix:
"All units with the TERMINATOR keyword have their armour save characteristic changed from 2+ to 1+"
Well, maybe 2 lines as I'm sure they'd need to "Note, rolls of 1 still fail"
Yeah it would leave anything out that doesn't have the keyword, like Obilterators. But honestly I think thats a good thing. Good ol' fashioned Terminator armour needs something to differentiate them from being "just another 2+ save infantry squad". Being the absolute gold standard in durability again would do that, partly at least.
Obliterators are pretty decent right now anyway, and anything else which is similar but not keyworded TERMINATOR could just be sorted out case by case in erratas and CA. Again I think the beauty of this change is its simplicity - GW are obviously keen to make easy sweeping changes instead of detailed, granular changes, and this change does exactly that while also making use of their flash new keyword system, which Im sure they are happy to flaunt some more.
Custodes don't have the keyword, aside from Allarus Terminators which do (and need the same love that Marine Termies do).
I would not agree that they should be the absolute Goldstandart in case of durability, that is something that should thematically lie with Nurgle Terminators, but a general durability and damage output buff or alteratively around a 10pts drop in price for each kind of terminator might do the trick aswell.
If for no other reason than that'd be tedious as all get-out to roll. Can you imagine taking, say, 10 wounds and having to roll each 2d6 separately? Every single time?
3+ roll 2D6 is really just 3+ re-roll failed saves.
When you do 10 2d fnp rolls for 1 W models you roll 10 D6 and then you re-roll any passed rolls. For the proposed Terminator change you roll 10D6 and re-roll any failed saves, while still having the option of re-rolling that second re-roll because it technically isn't a re-roll.
I'm not sure why Terminator need to be more than 25 pts including equipment? Even if you're playing a pure Terminator list you should be able to put some models on the table, things don't have to be 1-1 with the fluff, I get your Termies have to be elite, but that's still 6 Guardsmen worth of pts. Can we all agree that 25 pt Terminators are at least slightly OP? Okay, then let's find a value that fits. They're already twice as durable against bolters/lasguns compared to last edition which was what everyone was whining about then, they're equally tough against heavy bolters and lascannons compared to last edition because that's the sort of weapons that should be able to take them out. Now they need to get reduced a bit in cost and all the tournament units need to get upped a bit in points, repeat for a couple of years and they and every other unit will be balanced for the rest of time...
Oh yeah, that would be cool.
But what about things like Obliterators, Mutilators, etc that are TEQs, but I don't think they the TERMINATOR keyword?
Arguably they do not need it as those particular examples already have a 3rd wound, but I am sure there are other examples.
Do any Custodes units that the TERMINATOR keyword? Maybe it would be good for them NOT to have the 1+ armour since they're already good and their armour is technically different
Man, now I really, really want this change to happen. It's literally and easy 1 line fix:
"All units with the TERMINATOR keyword have their armour save characteristic changed from 2+ to 1+"
Well, maybe 2 lines as I'm sure they'd need to "Note, rolls of 1 still fail"
Yeah it would leave anything out that doesn't have the keyword, like Obilterators. But honestly I think thats a good thing. Good ol' fashioned Terminator armour needs something to differentiate them from being "just another 2+ save infantry squad". Being the absolute gold standard in durability again would do that, partly at least.
Obliterators are pretty decent right now anyway, and anything else which is similar but not keyworded TERMINATOR could just be sorted out case by case in erratas and CA. Again I think the beauty of this change is its simplicity - GW are obviously keen to make easy sweeping changes instead of detailed, granular changes, and this change does exactly that while also making use of their flash new keyword system, which Im sure they are happy to flaunt some more.
Custodes don't have the keyword, aside from Allarus Terminators which do (and need the same love that Marine Termies do).
I would not agree that they should be the absolute Goldstandart in case of durability, that is something that should thematically lie with Nurgle Terminators, but a general durability and damage output buff or alteratively around a 10pts drop in price for each kind of terminator might do the trick aswell.
I mean that Terminator Armour should be the gold standard (as it is so in the fluff), currently its not much more impressive than any of the multitude of other sources of 2+ saves available to Imperium and Chaos armies.
Nurgle Terminators have this keyword as well, so they would of course benefit from any sort of rules applied to it.
To be clear, I have no stakehold in Marine Terminators, I neither play with them nor against them regularly. But I certainly realize they need to be improved. The thing is, everything in the game wearing Terminator armour is in the same boat more or less, including characters. All I'm saying is that is far more effective (and likely to happen in a reasonable timeframe) if you apply some sort of rule change to the keyword, instead of mucking around with points/rules changes for individual datasheets. Theres no way that changing so many units one by one will be possible anytime soon going by GWs track record.
So lets take a look at weapons from the core rule book from 7th. (Mostly cause I don't wanna look though multiple codexes) They will be listed by 7thsAP/8thsAP
Spoiler:
Auto Pistol -/-
autogun -/-
Punisher Gattling cannon -/-
Assault cannon 4/-1
Auto cannon 4/-1
So here we have 40 weapons from the 7th Edition rule book laid out(Some may have been FAQ'd but I'm using whats printed). Eight of those weapons(using 7ths Ap system) Forced Terminators to use their invuln save, after the transition, 9 bump them to a 3+ Sv, 5 to a 4+ Sv, 12 force them to use their Invuln with 14 letting them use the 2+ save you pay for. Too be fair you could argue them being in cover to lump in the Ap-1 weapons too for 23 weapons that do not affect terminators.
Yes I understand that these are pretty much ALL IoM weapons so xenos weapons are up in the air since I don't personally own any of those and I'm not that devoted to this argument. But even Imperium weapons alone got better at dealing with terminators and xenos weapons are a little more potent in my opinion.
So I dunno, I personally don't think terminators are anymore durable. You cant say the extra wound makes them anymore durable now since all weapons in 7th did only 1 damage. But I feel like some information should be brought to the table beyond stating that they simply are more durable.
But hey if there's another chart that shows the info clearer than than my mangled list i'd like to see it, i'm genuinely curious.
You forgot how damage with those modifiers though. Almost all the -1AP weapons are D1, which is the same durability to those weapons. The wounding chart is also different which is an important point to remember. Even if Multilasers did D2 for whatever reason, Terminators would still be more durable because they're only wounded on a 3+ compared to a 2+.
So lets take a look at weapons from the core rule book from 7th. (Mostly cause I don't wanna look though multiple codexes) They will be listed by 7thsAP/8thsAP
Spoiler:
Auto Pistol -/-
autogun -/-
Punisher Gattling cannon -/-
Assault cannon 4/-1
Auto cannon 4/-1
So here we have 40 weapons from the 7th Edition rule book laid out(Some may have been FAQ'd but I'm using whats printed). Eight of those weapons(using 7ths Ap system) Forced Terminators to use their invuln save, after the transition, 9 bump them to a 3+ Sv, 5 to a 4+ Sv, 12 force them to use their Invuln with 14 letting them use the 2+ save you pay for. Too be fair you could argue them being in cover to lump in the Ap-1 weapons too for 23 weapons that do not affect terminators.
Yes I understand that these are pretty much ALL IoM weapons so xenos weapons are up in the air since I don't personally own any of those and I'm not that devoted to this argument. But even Imperium weapons alone got better at dealing with terminators and xenos weapons are a little more potent in my opinion.
So I dunno, I personally don't think terminators are anymore durable. You cant say the extra wound makes them anymore durable now since all weapons in 7th did only 1 damage. But I feel like some information should be brought to the table beyond stating that they simply are more durable.
But hey if there's another chart that shows the info clearer than than my mangled list i'd like to see it, i'm genuinely curious.
10 Heavy Bolters used to do 20 hits, 13 wounds, 2 unsaved wounds, killed two Terminators.
10 Heavy Bolters now do 20 hits, 13 wounds, 4 unsaved wounds, two dead terminators.
10 lascannons used to do 7 hits, 6 wounds, 4 unsaved wounds, killed four Terminators.
10 lascannons now do 7 hits, 6 wounds, 4 unsaved wounds, each Terminator now has a 1/6 chance of surviving that shot.
Plasmaguns now require something to re-roll ones if you don't want to lose all of them, if you don't have that available and you don't want to discard your plasma guns to do some damage then Terminators take less than half the number of casualties they used to.
Nobody complained last edition when Terminators got shot by lascannons, because if they're shooting Termies at least they're not shooting your tanks, but people just used weight of fire through regular boltguns to defeat them because a 2+ Sv is only twice as good as a 3+ and since Terminators cost more than twice the cost of a Marine they were actually more susceptible to boltguns than regular Marines were.
36 boltguns used to do 24 hits, 12 wounds, 2 unsaved wounds, 2 casualties.
36 boltguns now do 24 hits, 12 wounds, 2 unsaved wounds, 1 casualty.
Everything is working as intended Terminators are mini-Dreadnoughts, a little more vulnerable to anti-infantry, a little less susceptiple to anti-armour. Only problem is that they're too expensive compared to other options available to Imperium players.
Take a look at Celestine for example, she does pretty much the same thing Terminators do, if you could get three squads of Terminators for the cost of Celestine they'd be amazing, but one medium-size squad? Fail that 10" charge and you're looking at a turn 4 charge as your opponent calmly walks away from you until you can corner him, facing a skimmer army? Things get even worse.
One of the things SM do very well is aura buffs, as a Necron player that's what it looks like at least, I wish I had characters and buffs that good. Problem is that those buffs are almost never going to apply to Terminators. Another thing is Terminators never got to benefit from their buffs in the last CA because Deep Strike was hit by the nerfbat soon after.
I think Terminators should go from 40 pts all told to to 32 pts all told, I'm almost certain that's not going to break the game, depending on how many nerfs they deal out over the next couple of CAs they might eventually have to come down to 29 or even 25 if they decide to only buff units and never nerf anything.
T1 DS could work as well, it would make mass-Termie lists a lot more viable, I think just lowering their pts would see them used mainly as a one or two of as we saw with the list that used a unit of DG Terminators and won a tournament. It would also be a really easy thing to implement as others suggested a rule tied to the keyword making them more tough, just making units with the Terminator keyword ignore the deep strike beta rules would be super easy.
I mean that Terminator Armour should be the gold standard (as it is so in the fluff), currently its not much more impressive than any of the multitude of other sources of 2+ saves available to Imperium and Chaos armies.
Terminator is the gold standard for Imperium infantry but not for characters - that's artificer armour.
Forgive me if it already exists but would a battlefield teleport strategem be useful? Something like start of the movement phase, 1 CP move the squad to any point on the table 9" away from enemy models? If that was too good say something like roll a D6, on a 4+ the squad can then move as normal. (To make it not a dead cert of a charge.)
I still like 1+ save as well though. Terminators in a bunker or similar cover would be horrible to shoot out (0+ save in effect).
I think you bump everything up by 1T (including deathguard) and give everything with terminator keyword the following;
- -1 to wound rolls that target this unit (to 6+ max)
- reduce all damage by 1 to min of 1
- no penalties for unwieldy
- no consolidation after combat
bolt weapons now wound on 6s along with lasguns. plasma now wounds on a 4 even when overcharged and cant instakill. Nothing wounds on a 2+.
Benefit here is high strength and ap weaponry is still pretty effective, high damage weaponry is still pretty effective- as it should be, terminators arent meant to charge tanks and take volcano cannon shots to the chest- theyre meant to walk through small arms fire like its not there to reach an objective, thats what these rules enable; good luck dragging a squad of terminators down with las fire, you're gonna have to waste your big guns on them.
Plus unlike a few of the suggestions, this scales well and can be added to pretty much all terminator variants without conflicting with existing rules. and doesn't require all the faff with save modifiers.
Imagine a unit of Blightlords with these rules- they're not broken- but holy gak will it take some fire to get rid of them.
+1 wound is the obvious thing but makes them to resilient vs plasma etc.
I think a better proposal would be:
Normal Terminators: 24
Deathwatch Terminators: 27
Grey Knight Terminators: 37
This makes them better than 2 marines but cause special voltron rules. also easiest fix. Idk if said before but I hope what get in new chapter approved
- The "take 1 less damage down to a minimum of 1" rule is the best way to increase the toughness of Terminators IMO. It is a direct fix to what feths over Termies the most at the moment (overcharged plasma) without also increasing their survivability against small arms fire (Termies are survivable enough against that IMO). The +1 wound thing could work as well though.
- Allow more heavy weapons in the squad. At the moment Terminator equipment options are... lacking, in the ranged department. A Storm Bolter doesn't cut it on a model that costs at the very least 30+ points, Flamers can't be used from Deepstrike range so are out automatically and Plasma's are nice in theory but require deepstriking a pricey Captain alongside the Terminators to safely overcharge (I once wiped out an entire Hellblaster squad with a single overcharged volley from my Blightlord Termies + Termie Chaos Lord, but that was more luck than anything else ). The only thing I could personally see them using from deepstrike is Melta really, even if the price of the gun should probably come down a little. Allowing 3 heavy weapons per squad (like Deathwatch Terminators) allows a lot more customization and firepower, which is needed if the base cost for the model is as high as it is for Terminators. It's also very fluffy, in the fluff Terminators are depicted as being man-sized Dreadnoughts, allow them to equip themselves as such. It'll raise the points price on the unit because heavy weapons are expensive but it'll allow Terminators to be what they are supposed to be: The most elite unit a Space Marine army can field (that isn't a high-ranking officer), whose task it is to rip the proverbial heart out of the opposing army through precise deployment and overwhelming firepower.
- As for Assault Terminators, give them some kind of bonus on their charge rolls so they can make it in from Deepstrike more reliably. I'm not sure about giving them more attacks baseline, Thunder Hammers hit harder than a Krak Missile and they get 2 attacks at 1/3rds the price of a Cyclone Missile Launcher. Maybe ignoring the normal -1 to hit would be a good buff, this also represents their "man-sized Dreadnought" nature nicely.
- What I would most certainly NOT do is lowering the points costs of Terminators. They are supposed to be few yet very strong, let them be represented as such on the battlefield. For most Marine armies 2 5-man squads or 1 10-man squad should be the maximum they can feasably field in a standard 2000 points match without massively overspecializing.
Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that GW said that "there would be something nice for Marine players" in CA, let's hope that means some Terminator buffs (I'd love to field them more viably and more often because I have 3 Death Guard and 2 Space Wolves squads ).
- The "take 1 less damage down to a minimum of 1" rule is the best way to increase the toughness of Terminators IMO. It is a direct fix to what feths over Termies the most at the moment (overcharged plasma) without also increasing their survivability against small arms fire (Termies are survivable enough against that IMO). The +1 wound thing could work as well though.
I agree with this (the reduction of wounds taken by a weapon by 1). Termies need that I think and is totally fluffy. A +1 wound increase meh makes them to much like custodes. More heavy weapons, kinda crunches on the deathwatch theme.
A reduction in points for basic terminators across all SM chapters and the armour reduces all damage taken (depends how word it, per weapon like on eldar vehicles or a plain 1 would be pertinent) by +1 would be a good fix in Chapter approved to trial and see (you don't want a unit to have 20 changes at once, better to have a few then see if need more or less).
Pandabeer wrote: - As for Assault Terminators, give them some kind of bonus on their charge rolls so they can make it in from Deepstrike more reliably.
I think increasing offensive capabilities on a deepstrike is a poor balance mechanics.
By nature of the rule itself, deepstrike offers incredible (by incredible, I mean INVULNERABLE) defensive capabilities and incredible ranged offensive potentials.
You can't give EVERYTHING to deepstrikers. The game already operates primarilly on how to maximize reserves potential and how to screen to deny best positions.
Pandabeer wrote: - As for Assault Terminators, give them some kind of bonus on their charge rolls so they can make it in from Deepstrike more reliably.
I think increasing offensive capabilities on a deepstrike is a poor balance mechanics.
By nature of the rule itself, deepstrike offers incredible (by incredible, I mean INVULNERABLE) defensive capabilities and incredible ranged offensive potentials.
You can't give EVERYTHING to deepstrikers. The game already operates primarilly on how to maximize reserves potential and how to screen to deny best positions.
Then what is your solution for making Assault Terminators viable? You can't say "Tactical Terminators deepstriking is fine but if you want to use your Assault Terminators you'll have to invest in a 300+ points Land Raider as well and hope it survives until it can drop them off next to their target".
Besides that, shooting in general already is better than CC in 8th edition. Why is it ok for shooty deepstrikers to be able to deliver a guaranteed alpha strike from complete safety but is it not ok for choppy deepstrikers to have a decent chance (around 50-60%) of making their charge? Because at this point they are stuck with a slightly above 25% chance of making a 9" charge without modifiers and rerolls. Besides that, shooty deepstrikers also have more freedom in where they deploy. If you want to rapid fire Plasma, you can deploy up to 12" away without losing efficiency, choppy deepstrikers HAVE to deploy at that 9" spot or see their chances of making it in become exponentially smaller.
Add Effect: Terminator Armor "Halve all incoming damage to a minimum of 1"
Allow SGTs with Storm Shields to "spread the shields range, add +1 to a maximum of 3++ to the rest of the squads Invulnerable saves for the remainder of the turn."
Allow them to ignore the penalties for moving and firing combi-weapons. Remove the senseless penalty for using a power fist in cc, or Make them BS2 so that it hurts way less.
I've actually played games where my opponent agreed to let me ignore the power fist penalty, it wasn't any more op and it made the terminators so much more useful and fun.
Pandabeer wrote: Then what is your solution for making Assault Terminators viable? You can't say "Tactical Terminators deepstriking is fine but if you want to use your Assault Terminators you'll have to invest in a 300+ points Land Raider as well and hope it survives until it can drop them off next to their target".
Besides that, shooting in general already is better than CC in 8th edition. Why is it ok for shooty deepstrikers to be able to deliver a guaranteed alpha strike from complete safety but is it not ok for choppy deepstrikers to have a decent chance (around 50-60%) of making their charge? Because at this point they are stuck with a slightly above 25% chance of making a 9" charge without modifiers and rerolls. Besides that, shooty deepstrikers also have more freedom in where they deploy. If you want to rapid fire Plasma, you can deploy up to 12" away without losing efficiency, choppy deepstrikers HAVE to deploy at that 9" spot or see their chances of making it in become exponentially smaller.
1. Make LR's cheaper - currently, they're priced at LoW grade units with 3 base weapons, with upgradable MM and HKM. Most Superheavies rock minimum 4 weapons, few of which are weapon exclusive (which are mostly near-one-shot killy) to LoW grade (unlike LR's flamestorm, hurricane bolter, lascannon, assault cannon, heavy bolter, MM), with base 24+ wounds. At BEST, LR's are 1.75x preds and they should be priced accordingly so. So, we should be looking at about 160~200 base + weapons.
1 armiger can pull the offensive capability of a LR at fraction of cost. 2 armigers more or less are equally durable as a single LR (which meas twice the fire power of a LR).
2. Melee deepstrike has already been buffed by being allowed to charge after deepstriking. This may not look like it, but this is HUGE.
3. Shooty deepstrike is not OK, and this has been/is currently being addressed multiple times via nerf to tactical reserves through beta rules.
4. Assault termies, and all temies variants need point reduction.
Essentially, assault termies are big bad scarecrows as far as their in game functionality goes - them actually getting into assault is a plus.
Once you deepstrike in assault termies within 9" of something, they either have to spend their shooting taking the termies down or reposition, else they are blown to kingdom come (as long as you came in with the right equipment) come your next turn. They are pseudo-offensive units that force your opponent to play defensively instead of being able to focus down your heavy hitters (because once they get in range, they're the heavy hitters). The main problem now is that they cost too darn much to be used for such use.
honestly, I'm beginning to think that keeping it simple is the best option.
1. squad size them down to 3 and 5 models per unit, with a heavy weapon option at 3 and 5.
2. reduce them down to 16ppm, their weapon options more than inflate their price to keep them from crowding in on any other units roll space.
3. Make them T6.
with that, no need for special rules and makes them playable but not OP, imo.
Djangomatic82 wrote: honestly, I'm beginning to think that keeping it simple is the best option.
1. squad size them down to 3 and 5 models per unit, with a heavy weapon option at 3 and 5.
2. reduce them down to 16ppm, their weapon options more than inflate their price to keep them from crowding in on any other units roll space.
3. Make them T6.
with that, no need for special rules and makes them playable but not OP, imo.
T6.
T6!
What are you smoking? That's one point less tough than a DREADNOUGHT. That's tougher than Custodes! That's as tough as a Daemon Prince!
That is more than fine. most of the other suggestions would boost their survivabiliity to greater levels than a simple T6. the actual practical applications are more important. all it does is move the wounding bracket up 1 level for most weapons that are already agreed upon as being too effective against terminators.
Thus far, our groups' change of +1 Wound, and -8 Points (for models in a Terminator squad only - does not apply to characters) has been pretty good. Not enough games to really lay a heavy opinion, but people are taking them. 40 points less per squad, and three wounds makes them far more palatable, without adding any special rules or fancy tricks.
They still die to massed fire, etc...but they do more work.
What do Blightlords get, then? They already have a 5+ FNP.
Exactly. These fixes need to be universal as a whole. So that's keeping in mind:
Tactical Terminators
Assault Terminators
Cataphractii Armor Terminators
Tartaros Armor Terminators
Chaos Terminators
Blightlord Terminators
Deathshroud Terminators
Deathwing Knights
Paladins
Space Wolves Terminators
Scarab Occult Terminators
The eventual World Eaters and Emperors Children Terminator variants
That's why I'm always going for the WS/BS2+ and possibly an additional attack.
Making them ignore the -1 on weapons isn't a good fix. It would do nothing for the lightning claw versions, and for all those without a penalty on the snowflake weapon like DW knights. I would say that we keep the current cost and give one more attack to all varaints. Then the crux terminatus changes to reduce incoming damage by 1 (minimum 1). That 5++ was useless in any case.
What do Blightlords get, then? They already have a 5+ FNP.
Exactly. These fixes need to be universal as a whole. So that's keeping in mind:
Tactical Terminators
Assault Terminators
Cataphractii Armor Terminators
Tartaros Armor Terminators
Chaos Terminators
Blightlord Terminators
Deathshroud Terminators
Deathwing Knights
Paladins
Space Wolves Terminators
Scarab Occult Terminators
The eventual World Eaters and Emperors Children Terminator variants
That's why I'm always going for the WS/BS2+ and possibly an additional attack.
Well, i can see your argument for that, but what are you doing then with Chosen, Sternguard etc.
problem with removing the 5++ is it'd downgrade cataphracti plate to a 5++, which would be kinda meh. I think with improving termies the first step is to ask "what is their role? Do the fill that role? Is a weakness in the rules preventing them from filling their role?"
The role of terminators is to be super heavy infantry, infantry able to tank anti-personal weapons to a point you NEED heavy weapons to take them down. So, are people forced to devote heavy weapons to termies? is their surviability issue purely because people take a LOT of Lascannons? no, most of the issues seems to be a high volume of 2D weaponry, not a LOT of this stuffs job is to take down termies. perhaps add the following rule: Reduce each weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. if the weapon only deals 1 damage, you may re-roll your armor or invul score.
So... If I shoot you with a plasma gun super charged I'll only deal 1 damage, but if I DON'T over charge my plasma, vs a terminator, rthat termy gets to re-roll it's save.
these rules taken together would pretty much make terminators something that you realisticly need anti-tank weaponry for
Not to hi-jack the thread from the starter but if read a few pages of this thread the most wanted/suggested are:
1. Reduced points cost
2. Termies take 1 less damage from all weapons (to a minimum of 1)
These 2 will be what happens I think in CA (least amount of stuffing around for the rules and is easy to implement)
Other mentions:
3. +1 wound (personally I think makes them to much like custodes)
4. Increased charge, no minus to hit from weaps if assault etc, re-roll charge, etc etc
5. A feel no pain equivalent
6. Increase movement and invul
7. A few other very complicated changes
A lot of others. Just I think if going to be in a chapter approved they are not going to change it to much (not 1 million special rules or changes cause affects many armies). The first 2 seem easy.
Just was my summation/skim read of the many pages.
What do Blightlords get, then? They already have a 5+ FNP.
Exactly. These fixes need to be universal as a whole. So that's keeping in mind:
Tactical Terminators
Assault Terminators
Cataphractii Armor Terminators
Tartaros Armor Terminators
Chaos Terminators
Blightlord Terminators
Deathshroud Terminators
Deathwing Knights
Paladins
Space Wolves Terminators
Scarab Occult Terminators
The eventual World Eaters and Emperors Children Terminator variants
That's why I'm always going for the WS/BS2+ and possibly an additional attack.
Well, i can see your argument for that, but what are you doing then with Chosen, Sternguard etc.
That's for a different thread, but:
1. Vanguard get WS2+ and Sternguard get BS2+, and their Bolters become 1 point and Vanguard have special Chainswords with AP-1. This basically gives them a defined role compared to Command Squads, which can be equipped however and basically do everything better besides not being able to take Jump Packs. Whether that needs a point increase is a different conversation.
2. Chosen need to go down a point, but more importantly I feel they truly represent the basic Chaos Marine as a pissed Vet of the heresy. I would remove the basic Chaos Marine entry entirely and Chosen are now the Troop choice instead. Then Cultists would get a rule that they treat Chaos Infantry and Bikers like Characters, and you gotta shoot them to get at the meaty Marines. So at minimum the Chaos Marines all need Vet stats (+1A and LD). That's a fix for the codex in one fell swoop.
What do Blightlords get, then? They already have a 5+ FNP.
Exactly. These fixes need to be universal as a whole. So that's keeping in mind:
Tactical Terminators
Assault Terminators
Cataphractii Armor Terminators
Tartaros Armor Terminators
Chaos Terminators
Blightlord Terminators
Deathshroud Terminators
Deathwing Knights
Paladins
Space Wolves Terminators
Scarab Occult Terminators
The eventual World Eaters and Emperors Children Terminator variants
That's why I'm always going for the WS/BS2+ and possibly an additional attack.
Well, i can see your argument for that, but what are you doing then with Chosen, Sternguard etc.
That's for a different thread, but:
1. Vanguard get WS2+ and Sternguard get BS2+, and their Bolters become 1 point and Vanguard have special Chainswords with AP-1. This basically gives them a defined role compared to Command Squads, which can be equipped however and basically do everything better besides not being able to take Jump Packs. Whether that needs a point increase is a different conversation.
2. Chosen need to go down a point, but more importantly I feel they truly represent the basic Chaos Marine as a pissed Vet of the heresy. I would remove the basic Chaos Marine entry entirely and Chosen are now the Troop choice instead. Then Cultists would get a rule that they treat Chaos Infantry and Bikers like Characters, and you gotta shoot them to get at the meaty Marines. So at minimum the Chaos Marines all need Vet stats (+1A and LD). That's a fix for the codex in one fell swoop.
I mean Im kind drunk but what the hell are you talking about in regardes to terminators?
EDIT: THREAD says HOW TO MAKE TERMINATORS BETTER???
BrianDavion wrote: problem with removing the 5++ is it'd downgrade cataphracti plate to a 5++, which would be kinda meh. I think with improving termies the first step is to ask "what is their role? Do the fill that role? Is a weakness in the rules preventing them from filling their role?"
The role of terminators is to be super heavy infantry, infantry able to tank anti-personal weapons to a point you NEED heavy weapons to take them down. So, are people forced to devote heavy weapons to termies? is their surviability issue purely because people take a LOT of Lascannons? no, most of the issues seems to be a high volume of 2D weaponry, not a LOT of this stuffs job is to take down termies. perhaps add the following rule: Reduce each weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. if the weapon only deals 1 damage, you may re-roll your armor or invul score.
So... If I shoot you with a plasma gun super charged I'll only deal 1 damage, but if I DON'T over charge my plasma, vs a terminator, rthat termy gets to re-roll it's save.
these rules taken together would pretty much make terminators something that you realisticly need anti-tank weaponry for
They would also make them stupidly OP. 2+ re-rollable was removed for a reason. If you kill four of your Terminators with Tau Pulse Rifles you could have killed 3 Dreadnoughts, three Terminators by lasguns becomes two Dreadnoughts. This is not because Dreadnoughts are absurdly UP and easy to kill, but because your suggestion is insane. There is already at least one viable Terminator unit in the game, that unit has a 4++ and a 5+ FNP, that's a 50% increase in durability, but they also have a 25% increased cost. A better option would be to give them M20, at least you can still kill them.
Spectral Ceramite wrote: Not to hi-jack the thread from the starter but if read a few pages of this thread the most wanted/suggested are:
1. Reduced points cost
2. Termies take 1 less damage from all weapons (to a minimum of 1)
These 2 will be what happens I think in CA (least amount of stuffing around for the rules and is easy to implement)
Other mentions:
3. +1 wound (personally I think makes them to much like custodes)
4. Increased charge, no minus to hit from weaps if assault etc, re-roll charge, etc etc
5. A feel no pain equivalent
6. Increase movement and invul
7. A few other very complicated changes
A lot of others. Just I think if going to be in a chapter approved they are not going to change it to much (not 1 million special rules or changes cause affects many armies). The first 2 seem easy.
Just was my summation/skim read of the many pages.
-1 damage is such a stupid idea, it makes every anti-Terminator melee unit in the game horrible at killing Terminators, these units are already bad, do they get -1 damage as well? Letting Terminators DS T1 would be a much better solution, especially since the Beta DS change is going to be printed in the next CA anyways. I don't get why you people are so obsessed with making anti-Terminator weapons bad at killing Terminators. If Terminators get -1 damage and Monoliths don't get buffed through the roof I'm quitting.
Actually, the real reason why -1damage is a bad idea is because you can't do with without giving it to all terminator HQs too (as it would make zero sense), and some of them would quickly spin out of control (abbadon and celgar jump first to mind)
It also makes overcharging plasmas almost pointless against termies, and overcharging plasmas is supposed to be exactly FOR killing termies.
And letting them DS on T1 will undermine the entire reasoning WHY T1 DS gets phased out, its just TOO un-interactive. you are literally invulnerable on T1, and you get to deploy further up the field as an added bonus.
Whatever the change is, it needs to follow these rules:
1-applies to all terminator squads, and if introducing a new rule applies to HQs too, including characters.
2-does not replicate an already existing "special termi" ability (like all is dust or DR) because then the special termi becomes...not special.
3-does not make terminators not terminators. termis are sluggish juggernauts who are nearly impervious to small arms and require specialized gear to take down.
So, -1Damage breaks rule 1, as you can't apply it to HQs without getting absurd as most of them has 4 or more wounds, some even have 6 (before letting warlord traits and special chars come into play). it also only helps against heavy weapons and not against light fire, and that's the opposite of the direction you'd want.
Giving FnP breaks rule 2, because that's the DG terminator's "thing", give it to everyone and suddenly DG termis are boring as hell.
Adding movement speed or other maneuverability options breaks rule 3, because termies are supposed to be slow, heavy units-if you take that away you lose the termi flavor.
The "easy" solutions:
1-The statline field, like improved WS/BS/A or a combo thereof. honestly a rather boring idea, and while it adds some nice lethalty, does not make them any more durable (the main issue), and most termies hit hard enough if they dont drop quickly.
2-The point costs, however they are honestly a bit cheap already. making things cheaper is a never ending spiral that leads to bigger and bigger games and its a bad solution.
3-unit composition, making minimal squads smaller is nice for allowing to take a few easier, but does not make most termis actually better. letting you "mix and match" only helps codex termis, not everyone else and thus solves nothing.
All of these, are bad.
The better, yet more complicated solutions.
1-the inderect buff. one of the main issues of termis is that plasma is perfect againt them, yet is universally so good everyone spams it anyway. (except tau who has gimped plasma). nerfing plasma is a need of the game anyway, and will help termis a bit.
2-a special rule that isn't breaking HQs. now, my idea for one is honestly sounding a bit risky, but hear it out. reroll saves of 1.
Yes, its 2+ rerollable, and that got removed from the game for a good reason. but this is only against non-rending weapons. it makes termis virtually immune to small arms, yet makes them not all that much more durable against actual heavy weapons.
It makes it that you NEED specialized weapons, but if you got them-you'll be just fine.
I think rerolling saves of 1 (and only 1) is the best way to fix termies within the current system (the D6 just does not leave enough wiggle room)
Though a few HQs might need a price bump if you give the termies added durability like that.
Terminators are already basically immune to small arms. They're twice as durable from last edition to them. Only a select few weapons are actually more effective against them.
BoomWolf wrote: Actually, the real reason why -1damage is a bad idea is because you can't do with without giving it to all terminator HQs too (as it would make zero sense), and some of them would quickly spin out of control (abbadon and celgar jump first to mind) It also makes overcharging plasmas almost pointless against termies, and overcharging plasmas is supposed to be exactly FOR killing termies.
And letting them DS on T1 will undermine the entire reasoning WHY T1 DS gets phased out, its just TOO un-interactive. you are literally invulnerable on T1, and you get to deploy further up the field as an added bonus.
Whatever the change is, it needs to follow these rules: 1-applies to all terminator squads, and if introducing a new rule applies to HQs too, including characters. 2-does not replicate an already existing "special termi" ability (like all is dust or DR) because then the special termi becomes...not special. 3-does not make terminators not terminators. termis are sluggish juggernauts who are nearly impervious to small arms and require specialized gear to take down.
So, -1Damage breaks rule 1, as you can't apply it to HQs without getting absurd as most of them has 4 or more wounds, some even have 6 (before letting warlord traits and special chars come into play). it also only helps against heavy weapons and not against light fire, and that's the opposite of the direction you'd want.
Giving FnP breaks rule 2, because that's the DG terminator's "thing", give it to everyone and suddenly DG termis are boring as hell.
Adding movement speed or other maneuverability options breaks rule 3, because termies are supposed to be slow, heavy units-if you take that away you lose the termi flavor.
The "easy" solutions:
1-The statline field, like improved WS/BS/A or a combo thereof. honestly a rather boring idea, and while it adds some nice lethalty, does not make them any more durable (the main issue), and most termies hit hard enough if they dont drop quickly.
2-The point costs, however they are honestly a bit cheap already. making things cheaper is a never ending spiral that leads to bigger and bigger games and its a bad solution. 3-unit composition, making minimal squads smaller is nice for allowing to take a few easier, but does not make most termis actually better. letting you "mix and match" only helps codex termis, not everyone else and thus solves nothing.
All of these, are bad. The better, yet more complicated solutions.
1-the inderect buff. one of the main issues of termis is that plasma is perfect againt them, yet is universally so good everyone spams it anyway. (except tau who has gimped plasma). nerfing plasma is a need of the game anyway, and will help termis a bit.
2-a special rule that isn't breaking HQs. now, my idea for one is honestly sounding a bit risky, but hear it out. reroll saves of 1. Yes, its 2+ rerollable, and that got removed from the game for a good reason. but this is only against non-rending weapons. it makes termis virtually immune to small arms, yet makes them not all that much more durable against actual heavy weapons. It makes it that you NEED specialized weapons, but if you got them-you'll be just fine.
I think rerolling saves of 1 (and only 1) is the best way to fix termies within the current system (the D6 just does not leave enough wiggle room) Though a few HQs might need a price bump if you give the termies added durability like that.
It isn't much better on HQs than it is on regular Terminators. Characters that are near-unkillable are much less toxic than units that are near unkillable. The more likely a unit is to die the more important a buff to durability is for that unit, Terminator HQs are less likely to die in the first place, so even though they would also benefit against D3 weapons, D6 weapons and more against random damage weapons, D4 and D5 would continue to do the same damage and you're less likely to get attacked in the first place. A Terminator Captain is much easier to ignore than a squad of Terminators.
DS is not uninteractive, DS with long-ranged shooting units is, the more range the more uninteractive. You can't hide, you can't screen. There less range, the more counterplay, you get to screen which limits the options of your opponent and makes it a good option to maybe wait and come in later. Outflanking Shadowsword. How do you counterplay that? No hiding because you don't know where it'll arrive, no screening because of its long range. Terminators weren't unfun to play against back when we all had indexes, CSM warptime Terminator bomb was even pretty fun, you still had counterplay and when it was your turn you got to rapid-fire at them and kill them.
Re-rollable 2+ is gak. You're just making them rock-paper scissors units because you've decided that pts can't be changed for no reason, you've decided feth you to anyone who hasn't brough the neccessary amount of anti-tank. Pts can and should be changed when a unit is bad, it's not powercreep unless the unit you are buffing becomes meta, if all we're buffing is gak units to become not gak then it's fine. It's only a problem when decent units get buffed to become OP so they compete with other OP units. Terminators are perfectly fine rules-wise, giving them WS/BS 2+ cheapens characters and it's not like Terminator characters are being taken in droves right now, because as I if they don't get targeted they only need 1 W, so Terminator characters actually need as much of a buff as all other Terminators do. How you come to the conclusion that a 40+ pt model is cheap is beyond me. That's more than half the cost of a barebones Captain. They are infantry, not vehicles and there needs to be room for things like Centurions as well, which I imagine you've all forgotten about. Remember the super-Terminators that are also, if not even more atrocious?
Well we have our ceiling, custodes and our baseline, tactical marines. Gotta find a middle ground
Things I think is terminators damage output is kinda meh, so dare I suggest "Special issue storm bolters"? But then what about Sternguard since that's their new shtick.
Which frankly if I coulda done Sternguard I would've given them a rule to ignore the penalty of firing both combi profiles, which sounds boss instead of a spiffy boltgun.
Plus in melee I'm not sold on powerfists. GK units in my opinion are more reliable, or chaos terminators with axes or such which does not have a negative modifier
fraser1191 wrote: Well we have our ceiling, custodes and our baseline, tactical marines. Gotta find a middle ground
Things I think is terminators damage output is kinda meh, so dare I suggest "Special issue storm bolters"? But then what about Sternguard since that's their new shtick.
Which frankly if I coulda done Sternguard I would've given them a rule to ignore the penalty of firing both combi profiles, which sounds boss instead of a spiffy boltgun.
Plus in melee I'm not sold on powerfists. GK units in my opinion are more reliable, or chaos terminators with axes or such which does not have a negative modifier
That's why the WS/BS2+ and potentially extra attack is a good middle ground for the generic Terminators, as they're skilled as maybe Custodes but without the sheer strength and toughness, and then the rest have all their own special things after that.
Ooh, shooting both without penalty is cool and new and not too silly for characters. I guess it's not all that helpful for pistol characters or storm bolters.
I don't think fnp for all kills dg termies. They still get unique weapons and they're cataphracti for chaos, that's interesting too. Iron hands might get the short end.
fraser1191 wrote: Well we have our ceiling, custodes and our baseline, tactical marines. Gotta find a middle ground
Things I think is terminators damage output is kinda meh, so dare I suggest "Special issue storm bolters"? But then what about Sternguard since that's their new shtick.
Which frankly if I coulda done Sternguard I would've given them a rule to ignore the penalty of firing both combi profiles, which sounds boss instead of a spiffy boltgun.
Plus in melee I'm not sold on powerfists. GK units in my opinion are more reliable, or chaos terminators with axes or such which does not have a negative modifier
That's why the WS/BS2+ and potentially extra attack is a good middle ground for the generic Terminators, as they're skilled as maybe Custodes but without the sheer strength and toughness, and then the rest have all their own special things after that.
So running the numbers for vanilla terminators, they can kill 9 GEQ in a round of melee(with the entire unit having PFs, and the last guy is guaranteed to run) which, seems right all things considered for terminators.
Shooting they kill about 7, which just gives me the vision of a unit firing at one unit and charging another full unit carving their way in.
I think you're wining me over, this being the minimalist fix. Wouldn't be earth shattering, but would change things up for sure and as a blanket fix you don't have to worry about those other silly terminators.
So now I have questions.
If terminators get an additional attack, would the Sargeant gain one too or stay at 3?
And with plasma/2 wound weapons (disintegrator cannons come to mind) would you want a nerf on it by means of either a nerf to the gun or an additional wound on terminators?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: Ooh, shooting both without penalty is cool and new and not too silly for characters. I guess it's not all that helpful for pistol characters or storm bolters.
I think it would be a nice unique rule to Sternguard. I like the idea of them using combi weapons instead of boltguns, even if they get a spiffy one
fraser1191 wrote: Well we have our ceiling, custodes and our baseline, tactical marines. Gotta find a middle ground
Things I think is terminators damage output is kinda meh, so dare I suggest "Special issue storm bolters"? But then what about Sternguard since that's their new shtick.
Which frankly if I coulda done Sternguard I would've given them a rule to ignore the penalty of firing both combi profiles, which sounds boss instead of a spiffy boltgun.
Plus in melee I'm not sold on powerfists. GK units in my opinion are more reliable, or chaos terminators with axes or such which does not have a negative modifier
That's why the WS/BS2+ and potentially extra attack is a good middle ground for the generic Terminators, as they're skilled as maybe Custodes but without the sheer strength and toughness, and then the rest have all their own special things after that.
So running the numbers for vanilla terminators, they can kill 9 GEQ in a round of melee(with the entire unit having PFs, and the last guy is guaranteed to run) which, seems right all things considered for terminators.
Shooting they kill about 7, which just gives me the vision of a unit firing at one unit and charging another full unit carving their way in.
I think you're wining me over, this being the minimalist fix. Wouldn't be earth shattering, but would change things up for sure and as a blanket fix you don't have to worry about those other silly terminators.
So now I have questions.
If terminators get an additional attack, would the Sargeant gain one too or stay at 3?
And with plasma/2 wound weapons (disintegrator cannons come to mind) would you want a nerf on it by means of either a nerf to the gun or an additional wound on terminators?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: Ooh, shooting both without penalty is cool and new and not too silly for characters. I guess it's not all that helpful for pistol characters or storm bolters.
I think it would be a nice unique rule to Sternguard. I like the idea of them using combi weapons instead of boltguns, even if they get a spiffy one
I would be comfortable with the Sergeants getting an extra attack if they all do. One of those guys is gonna be next in line as a Captain at some point after all.
Don't forget that the WS/BS2+ fix also gives what a lot of people want (Relentless and 3+ to hit Power Fists) without ignoring how to fix every other Terminator too.
Don't play the 'they're gonna be a captain soon' card for this change too hard.
The ancient master who taught your Autarch everything they know about how to swing a sword (and often the Autarch's parents, too) are still WS3+ to this day, not 2+ like you'd expect.
The Crisis Suit leader who's getting promoted to Commander tomorrow along with the 2+ BS still has just a 4+ BS today - not even a 3+.
The "they're going to be better soon" argument doesn't get you too far. Hell, in some cases (Exarch vs Autarch), the more skilled model has a *lower* skill because herohammer.
Bharring wrote: Don't play the 'they're gonna be a captain soon' card for this change too hard.
The ancient master who taught your Autarch everything they know about how to swing a sword (and often the Autarch's parents, too) are still WS3+ to this day, not 2+ like you'd expect.
The Crisis Suit leader who's getting promoted to Commander tomorrow along with the 2+ BS still has just a 4+ BS today - not even a 3+.
The "they're going to be better soon" argument doesn't get you too far. Hell, in some cases (Exarch vs Autarch), the more skilled model has a *lower* skill because herohammer.
That said, I do agree with the change.
It's how their ranking system works. Who is the guy that taught the Autarch to wield a Sword? Or the Crisis Suit how to shoot? Remember that I'm all for Crisis Suits getting BS3+ standard anyway (along with any reasonable price decrease), and it isn't like there's a MORE Elite Crisis Suit outside maybe the bodyguard ones (I don't know their ranking system). In that specific case I'd be all for them getting the BS3+ instead of the regular suit, but with all those systems that makes little sense.
BS/WS 2+ would actually be fine, but the game has changed a lot. The last time they had 2+ shooting was in 2nd edition. That was fine because it was based on the old BS system and they were BS5 (as were normal Veterans). This meant, sans modifiers they'd shoot on a 2+. However, characters would be up to BS10...meaning they'd remain shooting 2+ for a long time, until the penalties really stacked up.
I'd be fine with super strong characters having "Unerring Accuracy" or something, and keeping a 2+ regardless of modifiers. Would add a good bit to characters, but you'd have to restrict it to Chapter Masters, etc. Not the average Space Marine Captain, etc. The ability to differentiate more was obviously lost when they left the old BS chart (for better or for worse). It's one of the reasons you see so many auras and re-rolls, etc.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
If 10% of units in the game have WS/BS 2+ and it gets changed to 15% of units in the game having WS/BS 2+ then it is no longer as much of a premium stat as it was when it was 10%. It's not a terrible idea by any means, it just doesn't fix Terminator characters, you're just going to take a smash captain to back up your Terminators if they get buffed to be worthwhile, just like CSM took a jump Sorc instead of a Termi Sorc to back up their Termi bomb.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
If 10% of units in the game have WS/BS 2+ and it gets changed to 15% of units in the game having WS/BS 2+ then it is no longer as much of a premium stat as it was when it was 10%. It's not a terrible idea by any means, it just doesn't fix Terminator characters, you're just going to take a smash captain to back up your Terminators if they get buffed to be worthwhile, just like CSM took a jump Sorc instead of a Termi Sorc to back up their Termi bomb.
There's nothing wrong with the Terminator characters. In your specific example, it's the Jump Pack doing several things:
1. Offering the same Deep Strike
2. Cheaper
3. Gives Fly
4. Better movement
If you expect them to die pretty quick anyway, you want the quicker movement and cheapness.
Also the point of Terminators is that they really shouldn't be as dependent on the HQs as other units.
Doesn't terminator armour make them more survivable (is the entire point). It's not gunna increase your skill, just your survivability and maybe strength etc (Cause was for close quarters, etc a few guys taking a butt tonne of damage but surviving and pushing through with some combat ability).
Fluff aside, the change has to be to the armour not any weapons etc (So can carry across all factions SM and alt chapters, DW, GK, Inquisition and Chaos. You can't give them special storm bolters or anything cause conflicts to much with DW ammo etc).
Terminator armour atm gives them +1 W, 2+ arm, 5+invul and DS, to any SM chapter available (units/characters), characters (inquis) and Chaos (units/characters). I think an increase to WS/BS is totally against what they are suppose to be and makes it almost redundant for characters (and how many people take Terminator characters atm, unless playing fluffy or GK's etc. I can't comment to much on Chaos I don't play them in 40k).
If looking at fluff, maybe no passive negative to hit from weapons (like T.hammer/p.fist etc). But that doesn't make them more survivable (Their other big role). The upgrade has to make them points efficient and make them to their role/persona/character (I think that is a survivable aspect with some combat prowess, but survivable is the key, to hold out and still do damage).
Must be déjà vu I think have read this before in the last 19 pages about WS/BS etc.
EDIT:
I just started to play AoS and I think how they have their system (-2 or -3 AP is rare or is super good) is how 40k should model (though AOS is more combat over shooting). Maybe they will go towards that? This mech bay thing that Orks are getting sound so much like the Heardstone/Idoneth Ship/ Sylvannia woods etc maybe they are going towards that model eventually. EDIT: But that's another discussion, the above is pertinent to Termies.
Spectral Ceramite wrote: Doesn't terminator armour make them more survivable (is the entire point). It's not gunna increase your skill, just your survivability and maybe strength etc (Cause was for close quarters, etc a few guys taking a butt tonne of damage but surviving and pushing through with some combat ability).
Fluff aside, the change has to be to the armour not any weapons etc (So can carry across all factions SM and alt chapters, DW, GK, Inquisition and Chaos. You can't give them special storm bolters or anything cause conflicts to much with DW ammo etc).
Terminator armour atm gives them +1 W, 2+ arm, 5+invul and DS, to any SM chapter available (units/characters), characters (inquis) and Chaos (units/characters). I think an increase to WS/BS is totally against what they are suppose to be and makes it almost redundant for characters (and how many people take Terminator characters atm, unless playing fluffy or GK's etc. I can't comment to much on Chaos I don't play them in 40k).
If looking at fluff, maybe no passive negative to hit from weapons (like T.hammer/p.fist etc). But that doesn't make them more survivable (Their other big role). The upgrade has to make them points efficient and make them to their role/persona/character (I think that is a survivable aspect with some combat prowess, but survivable is the key, to hold out and still do damage).
Must be déjà vu I think have read this before in the last 19 pages about WS/BS etc.
Chaos also does not field terminator lords/ sorcerers, etc. It is fairly save to assume that Terminators are used as a heavy shock infantry. Personally i'd like rules to represent that better, as in why does a terminator suffer from -1 modifyers when using a Assultcannon, Reaper autocannon etc after he teleported in? Why do they not get more heavy weapons choices? Why do they not do impact damage upon a successfull charge?
They feel "weightless" , (except maybee in a list that fields them, but there only in pts )
Spectral Ceramite wrote: Doesn't terminator armour make them more survivable (is the entire point). It's not gunna increase your skill, just your survivability and maybe strength etc (Cause was for close quarters, etc a few guys taking a butt tonne of damage but surviving and pushing through with some combat ability).
Fluff aside, the change has to be to the armour not any weapons etc (So can carry across all factions SM and alt chapters, DW, GK, Inquisition and Chaos. You can't give them special storm bolters or anything cause conflicts to much with DW ammo etc).
Terminator armour atm gives them +1 W, 2+ arm, 5+invul and DS, to any SM chapter available (units/characters), characters (inquis) and Chaos (units/characters). I think an increase to WS/BS is totally against what they are suppose to be and makes it almost redundant for characters (and how many people take Terminator characters atm, unless playing fluffy or GK's etc. I can't comment to much on Chaos I don't play them in 40k).
If looking at fluff, maybe no passive negative to hit from weapons (like T.hammer/p.fist etc). But that doesn't make them more survivable (Their other big role). The upgrade has to make them points efficient and make them to their role/persona/character (I think that is a survivable aspect with some combat prowess, but survivable is the key, to hold out and still do damage).
Must be déjà vu I think have read this before in the last 19 pages about WS/BS etc.
EDIT:
I just started to play AoS and I think how they have their system (-2 or -3 AP is rare or is super good) is how 40k should model (though is combat over shooting). Maybe they will go towards that? This mech bay thing that Orks are getting sound so much like the Heardstone/Idoneth Ship/ Sylvannia woods etc maybe they are going towards that model eventually.
Terminator armour is supposed to be extremely difficult to produce hence limited in number and hence only issued to the best of the veterans of a chapter etc right now one of the problems with terminators(and vanguard and sternguard) is stat wise they are no better than tactical marines, they lack a meaningful difference from non vet marines.
Giving them boosted stats allows them to be more impacting on the game and being blits by MW, mass gunfired to death etc becomes less of an issue if you can use them to force your opponents to have to deal with them or pay a meaningful price. Right now they are slow and do little damage, they are irrelevant bar drops onto an objective but thats too many points just to clear 1 objective and hold it.
They either need to be a shock unit which hits hard and doesn't go down easy or they go down in points appropriately.
My issue with the second is at sone point really it's no longer 40k it's playing epic in 28mm scale.
They either need to be a shock unit which hits hard and doesn't go down easy or they go down in points appropriately. (Suppose to be quote from Ice_can)
Not including some elite factions like DW which already are at 2Attacks each (which don't get an extra attack for termie armour (like 3), but DW are all veterans so then makes sense). So, they do put more experienced in Termie armour, hence the extra attack compared to normal marines, aka boosted stats. The difference between a norm marine (3+ to hit) and a Captain or Chapter master is (2+ to hit), is a D6 system, they cant jack it up for plebs (except SW apparently) cause not that much leeway.
Ye I think the quote. If don't hit hard (they can hit hard compared to norm marines, Imperil guard etc. All relative). Doesn't go down easy= THAT is the big thing to change (hence towards their fluff, THEY DON'T GO DOWN EASY, the problem is they do go down easy...).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
A Captain will increase the damage output of Terminators the same percentage (17%) regardless of whether or not they have WS/BS 2+, a Lieutenant will do the exact same 17%. Want me to explain the math in more detail?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
If 10% of units in the game have WS/BS 2+ and it gets changed to 15% of units in the game having WS/BS 2+ then it is no longer as much of a premium stat as it was when it was 10%. It's not a terrible idea by any means, it just doesn't fix Terminator characters, you're just going to take a smash captain to back up your Terminators if they get buffed to be worthwhile, just like CSM took a jump Sorc instead of a Termi Sorc to back up their Termi bomb.
There's nothing wrong with the Terminator characters. In your specific example, it's the Jump Pack doing several things:
1. Offering the same Deep Strike
2. Cheaper
3. Gives Fly
4. Better movement
If you expect them to die pretty quick anyway, you want the quicker movement and cheapness.
Also the point of Terminators is that they really shouldn't be as dependent on the HQs as other units.
How is there nothing wrong with Terminator chars? They're bad, nobody is taking them. They need a buff or every other Captain (more or less) needs a nerf to make them worthwhile.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
A Captain will increase the damage output of Terminators the same percentage (17%) regardless of whether or not they have WS/BS 2+, a Lieutenant will do the exact same 17%. Want me to explain the math in more detail?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
If 10% of units in the game have WS/BS 2+ and it gets changed to 15% of units in the game having WS/BS 2+ then it is no longer as much of a premium stat as it was when it was 10%. It's not a terrible idea by any means, it just doesn't fix Terminator characters, you're just going to take a smash captain to back up your Terminators if they get buffed to be worthwhile, just like CSM took a jump Sorc instead of a Termi Sorc to back up their Termi bomb.
There's nothing wrong with the Terminator characters. In your specific example, it's the Jump Pack doing several things:
1. Offering the same Deep Strike
2. Cheaper
3. Gives Fly
4. Better movement
If you expect them to die pretty quick anyway, you want the quicker movement and cheapness.
Also the point of Terminators is that they really shouldn't be as dependent on the HQs as other units.
How is there nothing wrong with Terminator chars? They're bad, nobody is taking them. They need a buff or every other Captain (more or less) needs a nerf to make them worthwhile.
Main problem is that SM and all of their units were intended to be the "baseline stats" while actually having sub-par statlines.
Lack of finer granularity is the issue as current SM statline cannot be increased without hitting the "captain" statline.
I still think the best fix is to give non-character TEQs +1 wound. It scales best across the board. Specific unit like Death Guard may need a point bump after some playtesting, but really that's it.
3W TEQs won't die to 1 Overcharging Plasma hit, but a single Plasma gun in RF range could still do the job. Best of both worlds
Plasma is hardly the issue when there's things like Disintegrators going around. I also showed earlier in the thread why an extra wound actually scales horribly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
A Captain will increase the damage output of Terminators the same percentage (17%) regardless of whether or not they have WS/BS 2+, a Lieutenant will do the exact same 17%. Want me to explain the math in more detail?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Giving them WS/BS2+ doesn't cheapen Characters, it makes them less dependent on them. MAJOR difference.
If 10% of units in the game have WS/BS 2+ and it gets changed to 15% of units in the game having WS/BS 2+ then it is no longer as much of a premium stat as it was when it was 10%. It's not a terrible idea by any means, it just doesn't fix Terminator characters, you're just going to take a smash captain to back up your Terminators if they get buffed to be worthwhile, just like CSM took a jump Sorc instead of a Termi Sorc to back up their Termi bomb.
There's nothing wrong with the Terminator characters. In your specific example, it's the Jump Pack doing several things:
1. Offering the same Deep Strike
2. Cheaper
3. Gives Fly
4. Better movement
If you expect them to die pretty quick anyway, you want the quicker movement and cheapness.
Also the point of Terminators is that they really shouldn't be as dependent on the HQs as other units.
How is there nothing wrong with Terminator chars? They're bad, nobody is taking them. They need a buff or every other Captain (more or less) needs a nerf to make them worthwhile.
You didn't actually show how it makes characters less important. So I have no idea what you want to prove.
Also Terminator Characters do get use, albeit in Special Character form (Chaos gets use from it, Calgar, , Draigo, etc), and then the occasional generic ones get used. That proves a problem with the generic entry than anything. Marine characters are heavily coated compared to other armies and you know that, all on top of the codex being priced like it'll have at minimum one of the rerolls available when we know that's not the case.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also showed earlier in the thread why an extra wound actually scales horribly.
And I vaguely remember disagreeing, but I don't want to bring that up again, so I'll leave it alone
-
You can't leave it alone if you want to prove your fix to be the best. I already showed how wonky it is with anything rolling for damage, where the Lascannon only inflicts enough damage 2/3 of the time compared to 5/6 as a primary example.
The point about +1 WS/BS not being a proper attribute of *armor* is a solid one. Which is why I'd modify the suggestion to:
The Marine Vet statline is WS/BS2+
This would also improve Sternies, Vanguard Vets, and soforth.
I don't think terminator *armor* is bad. 2+/5++ is a nice piece of armor. It's units that *have* it that are bad. Are we more interested in fixing termie *armor* or termie *units*?
Also, I'm not clear on why Dissies being OP means making Termies more resilient to 2W weapons like overcharged Plas does nothing. Why would that impact Dissies less than Plas?
(Side note: "Who is the guy that taught the Autarch to wield a Sword?" - an Exarch, probably of the Banshee, Scorpion, or Avenger persuasion. And the Autarch never reaches the level of the Exarch - if they had, they would not be able to become an Autarch. But Exarchs are back to WS/BS 3+.)
Bharring wrote: The point about +1 WS/BS not being a proper attribute of *armor* is a solid one. Which is why I'd modify the suggestion to:
The Marine Vet statline is WS/BS2+
This would also improve Sternies, Vanguard Vets, and soforth.
I don't think terminator *armor* is bad. 2+/5++ is a nice piece of armor. It's units that *have* it that are bad. Are we more interested in fixing termie *armor* or termie *units*?
Also, I'm not clear on why Dissies being OP means making Termies more resilient to 2W weapons like overcharged Plas does nothing. Why would that impact Dissies less than Plas?
(Side note: "Who is the guy that taught the Autarch to wield a Sword?" - an Exarch, probably of the Banshee, Scorpion, or Avenger persuasion. And the Autarch never reaches the level of the Exarch - if they had, they would not be able to become an Autarch. But Exarchs are back to WS/BS 3+.)
1. I'm not for a universal WS/BS2+ on Vets. What I'm suggesting is a combination of skill and the advanced armor. Vanguard getting WS2+ and Sterngaurd getting BS2+ basically gives them a defined role compared to Command Squads, and ensures they only pay for what they want to use. Anything about lowering the Special Issue Bolter cost or giving Vanguard AP-1 Chainswords is an afterthought for me.
2. Wouldn't the Autarch be more skilled anyway? Exarchs seem more obsessed with their tree anyway whereas the Autarch would have tried everything and became more skilled as a result. That said I'm not against Exarchs getting WS/BS2+ back, but I'm under the assumption they still had it, as the two main Eldar players I face play them like that.
The difference between a marine and a vet is +1 Ld and +1A
The difference between a Sternguard and a vanguard is wargear then in termie Armour vets just gain a 5++ and 2+ armour
Edit: the Armour also adds a wound, guess I forgot cause it's a non issue most of the time
Ld is a pretty moot Stat for basically everyone, and 2 attracts meant something when sweeping advance was a thing
I'm certainly in favor of VV being WS2+, Sterns being BS2+ and Termies being both.
Especially since the standard melee weapon for Termies is -1 to hit and the standard range weapon upgrades are either Heavy or auto-hit.
In lieu of giving TEQs +1W, being WS/BS2+ is the least that should happen
1. Shouldn't the ws/bs be the skill of the wearer? why would a Vet "forget" how to shoot a Boltgun just because they strapped on a jetpack today instead of walking tank armor suit?
2. "Wouldn't the Autarch be more skilled anyway? Exarchs seem more obsessed with their tree anyway whereas the Autarch would have tried everything and became more skilled as a result."
Why would a Banshee Exarch be less skilled at swinging a sword than a Banshee Aspect Warrior that went on to be a Swooping Hawk Aspect Warrior at swinging a sword? The Banshee Exarch may not know how to use the wings or the finer points of a Lasblaster the way an Autarch would (although there's no reason to assume no soul that's part of the Exarch ever was a Swooping Hawk). But they're going to know a whole lot more about anything swordplay-related than a "mere" Aspect Warrior. Side note on the side note: it's possible for an Exarch to have been an Autarch, but it is not possible for an Autarch to have been an Exarch.
The Termie armor also gives W2. But then, with a 2+, that 5++ doesn't do much this edition. Armor adding improved durability makes sense. Armor making you more skilled doesn't.
Bharring wrote: 1. Shouldn't the ws/bs be the skill of the wearer? why would a Vet "forget" how to shoot a Boltgun just because they strapped on a jetpack today instead of walking tank armor suit?.
Yes, which is why Termies should have it as they are the Chapter's best of the best
For VVs and Stern, having only one bumped but not the other is because they aren't specialized for both. Kinda "use it or lose it"
But can't any given Vet deploy as either a VV or Sternie depending on which squad he's currently in? Bob the Vet Marine could be a Sternie today, a VV tomorrow, and a Termie on Sunday (the last one only if he has the Crux Terminatus)?
Bharring wrote: But can't any given Vet deploy as either a VV or Sternie depending on which squad he's currently in? Bob the Vet Marine could be a Sternie today, a VV tomorrow, and a Termie on Sunday (the last one only if he has the Crux Terminatus)?
Certain members are going to have more of an aptitude for that task at hand. These guys aren't just Company Vets. They're THE top of the line for that task. Then anyone better than that gets the Terminator suits, which have advanced systems.
Some chapters might have dedicated Vets who are VV or Sternies, sure. Homebrews can do whatever. But in most chapters, aren't you required to be an all-around badass to be a Vet? Not just a good shot or good with a sword?
Most chapters can deploy some squads as either Termies or Vets. Why would they lose skill when they deploy as Vets?
I'm not sure I've seen any fluff that puts Termie armor targetting systems on a whole level above Power Armor. Otherwise, wouldn't a Termie-armored Captain have better BS than a PA Captain?
Bharring wrote: But can't any given Vet deploy as either a VV or Sternie depending on which squad he's currently in? Bob the Vet Marine could be a Sternie today, a VV tomorrow, and a Termie on Sunday (the last one only if he has the Crux Terminatus)?
But I don't wanna pay points for a VV to have 2 lightning claws and a 2+ BS
(As for balance, would anyone really *care* that VV had BS2+, or Sternies had WS2+? This should be driven almost entirely by fluff, as it has almost no balance impact.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fraser - don't you "pay points" for a CCW Termie as is? And the thought is to be giving it a 2+BS despite not using it?
Besides, Tac Termies are the only unit here (Tac Termies, CCW Termies, VV, Sternies) that would reasonably use both skills. I'm sure the others should each pay nearly 0ppm for the 2+ skill they don't use.
Bharring wrote: (As for balance, would anyone really *care* that VV had BS2+, or Sternies had WS2+? This should be driven almost entirely by fluff, as it has almost no balance impact.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fraser - don't you "pay points" for a CCW Termie as is? And the thought is to be giving it a 2+BS despite not using it?
Besides, Tac Termies are the only unit here (Tac Termies, CCW Termies, VV, Sternies) that would reasonably use both skills. I'm sure the others should each pay nearly 0ppm for the 2+ skill they don't use.
Most people are in favor of removing the distinct Tactical and Assault entries because it's stupid.
BS 2+ storm bolters are more worthwhile than a BS 2+ bolt pistol on a VV when I buy them with melee in mind (2x LC, sure I can buy them plasma pistols but a Sternguard can buy a full rifle)
Also yeah "normal" and assault termies should be blended together sorta like tartaros and cataphract termies, more or less
Spectral Ceramite wrote: Doesn't terminator armour make them more survivable (is the entire point). It's not gunna increase your skill, just your survivability and maybe strength etc (Cause was for close quarters, etc a few guys taking a butt tonne of damage but surviving and pushing through with some combat ability).
Fluff aside, the change has to be to the armour not any weapons etc (So can carry across all factions SM and alt chapters, DW, GK, Inquisition and Chaos. You can't give them special storm bolters or anything cause conflicts to much with DW ammo etc).
Terminator armour atm gives them +1 W, 2+ arm, 5+invul and DS, to any SM chapter available (units/characters), characters (inquis) and Chaos (units/characters). I think an increase to WS/BS is totally against what they are suppose to be and makes it almost redundant for characters (and how many people take Terminator characters atm, unless playing fluffy or GK's etc. I can't comment to much on Chaos I don't play them in 40k).
If looking at fluff, maybe no passive negative to hit from weapons (like T.hammer/p.fist etc). But that doesn't make them more survivable (Their other big role). The upgrade has to make them points efficient and make them to their role/persona/character (I think that is a survivable aspect with some combat prowess, but survivable is the key, to hold out and still do damage).
Must be déjà vu I think have read this before in the last 19 pages about WS/BS etc.
EDIT:
I just started to play AoS and I think how they have their system (-2 or -3 AP is rare or is super good) is how 40k should model (though is combat over shooting). Maybe they will go towards that? This mech bay thing that Orks are getting sound so much like the Heardstone/Idoneth Ship/ Sylvannia woods etc maybe they are going towards that model eventually.
Terminator armour is supposed to be extremely difficult to produce hence limited in number and hence only issued to the best of the veterans of a chapter etc right now one of the problems with terminators(and vanguard and sternguard) is stat wise they are no better than tactical marines, they lack a meaningful difference from non vet marines.
Giving them boosted stats allows them to be more impacting on the game and being blits by MW, mass gunfired to death etc becomes less of an issue if you can use them to force your opponents to have to deal with them or pay a meaningful price. Right now they are slow and do little damage, they are irrelevant bar drops onto an objective but thats too many points just to clear 1 objective and hold it.
They either need to be a shock unit which hits hard and doesn't go down easy or they go down in points appropriately.
My issue with the second is at sone point really it's no longer 40k it's playing epic in 28mm scale.
I'll just restate my previous comment ,because I really do think that upping terminators to T6 would help them against all of the weapons everyone in this thread keeps naming as being too effective against them.
-T6 means plasma, whether overcharged or not is only wounding on 3's instead of 2's. Dissintegrators and heavy bolters wound on 5's instead of 3's. It even helps against massed FRF,SRF lasgun barrages as only 6 will wound, though volume is still going to down them as it currently does.
Regarding boosting their offensive power, I have come to the same position as others that reducing their points cost is the best way to make them more killey. Reducing their cost to 16ppm + wargear, would mean that you could field a 5man squad with a cyclone missile launcher for the same 192 points that right now only get you a bare bones squad.
I've seen the idea floated around a bit before, but giving them an ability to reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 would help against the plethora of D2 weapons that they are most susceptible towards.
In fact, give all marines this rule! What's it called in Kill Team? Transhuman Physiology?
NurglesR0T wrote: I've seen the idea floated around a bit before, but giving them an ability to reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 would help against the plethora of D2 weapons that they are most susceptible towards.
In fact, give all marines this rule! What's it called in Kill Team? Transhuman Physiology?
Transhuman physiology makes them ignore the first flesh wound in regards to it's negative modifiers in kill team, apart from the injury roll
You didn't actually show how it makes characters less important. So I have no idea what you want to prove.
Also Terminator Characters do get use, albeit in Special Character form (Chaos gets use from it, Calgar, , Draigo, etc), and then the occasional generic ones get used. That proves a problem with the generic entry than anything. Marine characters are heavily coated compared to other armies and you know that, all on top of the codex being priced like it'll have at minimum one of the rerolls available when we know that's not the case.
Never said it did. I said they are equally important.
Never heard of or seen a generic Termi char or Calgar, seen one Abbadon in a small local tournament, played one game against a list with Belial, one against Typhus, Draigo is the only one that is really popular, GK don't really get many options beyond Termi chars, the popularity of Dreadknight GMs proves my point,
NurglesR0T wrote: I've seen the idea floated around a bit before, but giving them an ability to reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 would help against the plethora of D2 weapons that they are most susceptible towards.
In fact, give all marines this rule! What's it called in Kill Team? Transhuman Physiology?
Why not give them M8 while you are at it? Big legs = bi steps no? You know Marine can probably shut he pain of y no also fel no pan klo gah bib bub krrrrr.
Spectral Ceramite wrote: Doesn't terminator armour make them more survivable (is the entire point). It's not gunna increase your skill, just your survivability and maybe strength etc (Cause was for close quarters, etc a few guys taking a butt tonne of damage but surviving and pushing through with some combat ability).
Fluff aside, the change has to be to the armour not any weapons etc (So can carry across all factions SM and alt chapters, DW, GK, Inquisition and Chaos. You can't give them special storm bolters or anything cause conflicts to much with DW ammo etc).
Terminator armour atm gives them +1 W, 2+ arm, 5+invul and DS, to any SM chapter available (units/characters), characters (inquis) and Chaos (units/characters). I think an increase to WS/BS is totally against what they are suppose to be and makes it almost redundant for characters (and how many people take Terminator characters atm, unless playing fluffy or GK's etc. I can't comment to much on Chaos I don't play them in 40k).
If looking at fluff, maybe no passive negative to hit from weapons (like T.hammer/p.fist etc). But that doesn't make them more survivable (Their other big role). The upgrade has to make them points efficient and make them to their role/persona/character (I think that is a survivable aspect with some combat prowess, but survivable is the key, to hold out and still do damage).
Must be déjà vu I think have read this before in the last 19 pages about WS/BS etc.
EDIT:
I just started to play AoS and I think how they have their system (-2 or -3 AP is rare or is super good) is how 40k should model (though is combat over shooting). Maybe they will go towards that? This mech bay thing that Orks are getting sound so much like the Heardstone/Idoneth Ship/ Sylvannia woods etc maybe they are going towards that model eventually.
Terminator armour is supposed to be extremely difficult to produce hence limited in number and hence only issued to the best of the veterans of a chapter etc right now one of the problems with terminators(and vanguard and sternguard) is stat wise they are no better than tactical marines, they lack a meaningful difference from non vet marines.
Giving them boosted stats allows them to be more impacting on the game and being blits by MW, mass gunfired to death etc becomes less of an issue if you can use them to force your opponents to have to deal with them or pay a meaningful price. Right now they are slow and do little damage, they are irrelevant bar drops onto an objective but thats too many points just to clear 1 objective and hold it.
They either need to be a shock unit which hits hard and doesn't go down easy or they go down in points appropriately.
My issue with the second is at sone point really it's no longer 40k it's playing epic in 28mm scale.
I'll just restate my previous comment ,because I really do think that upping terminators to T6 would help them against all of the weapons everyone in this thread keeps naming as being too effective against them.
-T6 means plasma, whether overcharged or not is only wounding on 3's instead of 2's. Dissintegrators and heavy bolters wound on 5's instead of 3's. It even helps against massed FRF,SRF lasgun barrages as only 6 will wound, though volume is still going to down them as it currently does.
Regarding boosting their offensive power, I have come to the same position as others that reducing their points cost is the best way to make them more killey. Reducing their cost to 16ppm + wargear, would mean that you could field a 5man squad with a cyclone missile launcher for the same 192 points that right now only get you a bare bones squad.
T6 makes thek tougher than Custodes and as tough as a custodes biker. I can't see GW allowing them to overlap so heavily.
The other way you stop plasma being so insanely better than anything else is just make it S6 S7 overcharged.
I do suspect that it is a broken as it is because hellblasters as primaris marines primary heavy shooting from infantry.
Stupid primaris breaking the game.
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.
Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?
Bharring wrote: -Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there. -Primaris are weak. 2W... as above. -Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.
Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?
Yeah, that's why I really REALLY want all MEQs and TEQ to just get +1W. Some units would clearly need to be 2-3ppm more, like Tacticals potentially. Although I'd keep Primaris at 2W, but give then T5 instead. Overally you would get less models in an army (so things like WS/BS2+ on Termies, VV and SG would be even more needed) but the army would FEEL like you're playing "tough as nails" Marines. D2 weapons at this point would be fine in their current multitude. Termies and Bike wouldn't get outright splatted by them, but Marines and Primaris still would
Another option is to play the Toughness game. With the change to the S vs T chart in 8E, increases in T are less dramatic. TEQs could be T5 (DG being T6) and Bikes also T6 For Termies, that would make a slight different vs Overcharged Plasma
Bharring wrote: -Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.
Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?
Yeah, that's why I really REALLY want all MEQs and TEQ to just get +1W. Some units would clearly need to be 2-3ppm more, like Tacticals potentially. Although I'd keep Primaris at 2W, but give then T5 instead.
Overally you would get less models in an army (so things like WS/BS2+ on Termies, VV and SG would be even more needed) but the army would FEEL like you're playing "tough as nails" Marines.
D2 weapons at this point would be fine in their current multitude. Termies and Bike wouldn't get outright splatted by them, but Marines and Primaris still would
Another option is to play the Toughness game. With the change to the S vs T chart in 8E, increases in T are less dramatic. TEQs could be T5 (DG being T6) and Bikes also T6
For Termies, that would make a slight different vs Overcharged Plasma
Bharring wrote: -Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.
Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?
Yeah, that's why I really REALLY want all MEQs and TEQ to just get +1W. Some units would clearly need to be 2-3ppm more, like Tacticals potentially. Although I'd keep Primaris at 2W, but give then T5 instead.
Overally you would get less models in an army (so things like WS/BS2+ on Termies, VV and SG would be even more needed) but the army would FEEL like you're playing "tough as nails" Marines.
D2 weapons at this point would be fine in their current multitude. Termies and Bike wouldn't get outright splatted by them, but Marines and Primaris still would
Another option is to play the Toughness game. With the change to the S vs T chart in 8E, increases in T are less dramatic. TEQs could be T5 (DG being T6) and Bikes also T6
For Termies, that would make a slight different vs Overcharged Plasma
-
I do agree GW hasn't taken advantage of the new sounding chart. At all. They kept all the S/T stats the same and only changed wounds here and there.
Well, Nurglings being T2 is certainly some form of exploration of the new to-wound system, but yeah, they can really go a bit further by making things that USED to be T4, but supposedly tougher than Marines and make them....well TOUGHER than Marines
Galef wrote: Well, Nurglings being T2 is certainly some form of exploration of the new to-wound system, but yeah, they can really go a bit further by making things that USED to be T4, but supposedly tougher than Marines and make them....well TOUGHER than Marines
-
Keeping a lot of the weapons the same Strength doesn't help either. I mean yeah it's cool Lascannons only wound my Rhinos on a 3+, but they're wounding Plague Marines at the same rate.
Galef wrote: Well, Nurglings being T2 is certainly some form of exploration of the new to-wound system, but yeah, they can really go a bit further by making things that USED to be T4, but supposedly tougher than Marines and make them....well TOUGHER than Marines
-
But a Terminator Marine, is still just a Marine. A somewhat more skilled and experienced one for sure, but the guy inside the armor is still a Space Marine. Its the armor that makes the difference - and while the abstraction in the rules can go either way, I think it'd makes more sense for it to be the armor that makes a Terminator tougher, not just the marine inside being tougher - otherwise why bother with more expensive armor?
The additional durability they need should somehow be reflected in that, somehow. A 1+ save, maybe allowing them to use the 5++ invulnerable as well as the armor save, -1W on hits, something to show that the armor is making them harder to kill.
On a related note, personally I've always felt that a storm bolter should be a bit more than essentially '2 bolters strapped together' and should be more powerful against some targets than others. E.g. allow the Storm bolter to have -1AP against INFANTRY targets only.
Galef wrote: Well, Nurglings being T2 is certainly some form of exploration of the new to-wound system, but yeah, they can really go a bit further by making things that USED to be T4, but supposedly tougher than Marines and make them....well TOUGHER than Marines
-
But a Terminator Marine, is still just a Marine. A somewhat more skilled and experienced one for sure, but the guy inside the armor is still a Space Marine. Its the armor that makes the difference - and while the abstraction in the rules can go either way, I think it'd makes more sense for it to be the armor that makes a Terminator tougher, not just the marine inside being tougher - otherwise why bother with more expensive armor?
The additional durability they need should somehow be reflected in that, somehow. A 1+ save, maybe allowing them to use the 5++ invulnerable as well as the armor save, -1W on hits, something to show that the armor is making them harder to kill.
On a related note, personally I've always felt that a storm bolter should be a bit more than essentially '2 bolters strapped together' and should be more powerful against some targets than others. E.g. allow the Storm bolter to have -1AP against INFANTRY targets only.
Toughness represents more than the meat in the armor though.
Bharring wrote: -Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.
Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?
NurglesR0T wrote: I've seen the idea floated around a bit before, but giving them an ability to reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 would help against the plethora of D2 weapons that they are most susceptible towards.
In fact, give all marines this rule! What's it called in Kill Team? Transhuman Physiology?
Why not give them M8 while you are at it? Big legs = bi steps no? You know Marine can probably shut he pain of y no also fel no pan klo gah bib bub krrrrr.
Kcalehc wrote: But a Terminator Marine, is still just a Marine. A somewhat more skilled and experienced one for sure, but the guy inside the armor is still a Space Marine.
So they should be only somewhat more expensive than a marine, not 2x more before gear and 3, after gear.
Assuming marines will never get a point reduction because reasons, termie ppm should be 20 (~1.5x marine) to 23 (~1.75x marine). Termie base is NOT worh two marines.
Makes me, as someone who ran pure deathwing to some pretty good success competitively many years ago, sad to see how badly they've destroyed the unit in this edition.
I would think a points reduction is definitely necessary. 1500pt tourney list was already only 18 or so models.... making them more expensive was not a good thing.
One thing I could see helping over all is a move back away from "power level". The way "power level" works, and it's correlation to points, does not seem to work well from what I'm seeing...stop trying to run two systems.
One thing I always wanted was guard at T3, a Sob at T4, a marine scout T4, a Tac marine T5 and finally a Termie at T6. But that would require an entire new edition...
I feel like if ap is supposed to represent the level of Armour penetration, then the Toughness value of the model should represent the entity as a whole.
Edit, The save value I would have represent more of the amours ability to shrug off the shot. Terminator Armour can clearly shrug off more than a flakk jacket
A scout has carapace Armour which more or less is modern body armour in style. A marines suit of Armour is totally enclosed with little to no gaps but he's still the same T as a scout? A Lasgun has equal odds of doing the same damage to say the shoulder?
txaggieof08 wrote: Makes me, as someone who ran pure deathwing to some pretty good success competitively many years ago, sad to see how badly they've destroyed the unit in this edition.
I would think a points reduction is definitely necessary. 1500pt tourney list was already only 18 or so models.... making them more expensive was not a good thing.
One thing I could see helping over all is a move back away from "power level". The way "power level" works, and it's correlation to points, does not seem to work well from what I'm seeing...stop trying to run two systems.
LOL you did not. In fact this is the best they've been ever. They just need even more help.
fraser1191 wrote: One thing I always wanted was guard at T3, a Sob at T4, a marine scout T4, a Tac marine T5 and finally a Termie at T6. But that would require an entire new edition...
I feel like if ap is supposed to represent the level of Armour penetration, then the Toughness value of the model should represent the entity as a whole.
Edit, The save value I would have represent more of the amours ability to shrug off the shot. Terminator Armour can clearly shrug off more than a flakk jacket
A scout has carapace Armour which more or less is modern body armour in style. A marines suit of Armour is totally enclosed with little to no gaps but he's still the same T as a scout? A Lasgun has equal odds of doing the same damage to say the shoulder?
And by consequence making everything but dedicated AT weaponry usefull against nurgle terminators?
I beg your pardon but that is a bad suggestion.
txaggieof08 wrote: Makes me, as someone who ran pure deathwing to some pretty good success competitively many years ago, sad to see how badly they've destroyed the unit in this edition.
I would think a points reduction is definitely necessary. 1500pt tourney list was already only 18 or so models.... making them more expensive was not a good thing.
One thing I could see helping over all is a move back away from "power level". The way "power level" works, and it's correlation to points, does not seem to work well from what I'm seeing...stop trying to run two systems.
LOL you did not. In fact this is the best they've been ever. They just need even more help.
I'm glad you remember me from the 98-2000 period when I was playing a lot! It will be great to catch up with some of my old gaming group. Feel free to leave me contact information.
Or are you just talking out your rear end, pretending to know it all, seen it all, done it all?
txaggieof08 wrote: Makes me, as someone who ran pure deathwing to some pretty good success competitively many years ago, sad to see how badly they've destroyed the unit in this edition.
I would think a points reduction is definitely necessary. 1500pt tourney list was already only 18 or so models.... making them more expensive was not a good thing.
One thing I could see helping over all is a move back away from "power level". The way "power level" works, and it's correlation to points, does not seem to work well from what I'm seeing...stop trying to run two systems.
LOL you did not. In fact this is the best they've been ever. They just need even more help.
I'm glad you remember me from the 98-2000 period when I was playing a lot! It will be great to catch up with some of my old gaming group. Feel free to leave me contact information.
Or are you just talking out your rear end, pretending to know it all, seen it all, done it all?
Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.
)
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
). The only thing I could personally see them using from deepstrike is Melta really, even if the price of the gun should probably come down a little. Allowing 3 heavy weapons per squad (like Deathwatch Terminators) allows a lot more customization and firepower, which is needed if the base cost for the model is as high as it is for Terminators. It's also very fluffy, in the fluff Terminators are depicted as being man-sized Dreadnoughts, allow them to equip themselves as such. It'll raise the points price on the unit because heavy weapons are expensive but it'll allow Terminators to be what they are supposed to be: The most elite unit a Space Marine army can field (that isn't a high-ranking officer), whose task it is to rip the proverbial heart out of the opposing army through precise deployment and overwhelming firepower.
).
